Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38539160›Full record

ReviewEnvironmental health : a global access science source2024

Systems for rating bodies of evidence used in systematic reviews of air pollution exposure and reproductive and children's health: a methodological survey.

Sophie K F Michel, Aishwarya Atmakuri, Ondine S von Ehrenstein

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Environmental health : a global access science source, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Sophie K F MichelDepartment of Epidemiology, Fielding School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), 650 Charles E Young Dr S, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA. sophiemichel@g.ucla.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-8113-7559
Aishwarya AtmakuriDepartment of Molecular, Cell, and Developmental Biology, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), Los Angeles, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1648-3890
Ondine S von EhrensteinDepartment of Epidemiology, Fielding School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), 650 Charles E Young Dr S, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3366-6867

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTranslating findings from systematic reviews assessing associations between environmental exposures and reproductive and children's health into policy recommendations requires valid and transparent evidence grading.

methodsWe aimed to evaluate systems for grading bodies of evidence used in systematic reviews of environmental exposures and reproductive/ children's health outcomes, by conducting a methodological survey of air pollution research, comprising a comprehensive search for and assessment of all relevant systematic reviews. To evaluate the frameworks used for rating the internal validity of primary studies and for grading bodies of evidence (multiple studies), we considered whether and how specific criteria or domains were operationalized to address reproductive/children's environmental health, e.g., whether the timing of exposure assessment was evaluated with regard to vulnerable developmental stages.

resultsEighteen out of 177 (9.8%) systematic reviews used formal systems for rating the body of evidence; 15 distinct internal validity assessment tools for primary studies, and nine different grading systems for bodies of evidence were used, with multiple modifications applied to the cited approaches. The Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) framework, neither developed specifically for this field, were the most commonly used approaches for rating individual studies and bodies of evidence, respectively. Overall, the identified approaches were highly heterogeneous in both their comprehensiveness and their applicability to reproductive/children's environmental health research.

conclusionEstablishing the wider use of more appropriate evidence grading methods is instrumental both for strengthening systematic review methodologies, and for the effective development and implementation of environmental public health policies, particularly for protecting pregnant persons and children.

Indexed as

Air PollutionChild HealthEnvironmental ExposureAir PollutantsChildHumansReproductive HealthReview Literature as TopicAir PollutantsAir pollutionBody of evidenceEvidence gradingMethodological surveyReproductive and children’s healthSystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID38539160
PMCPMC10976715

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.