Reviews in environmental health: How systematic are they?
Background: Synthesizing environmental health science is crucial to taking action to protect public health. Procedures for evidence evaluation and integration are transitioning from “expert-based narrative” to “systematic” review methods. However, little is known about the methodology being utilized...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Elsevier
2021-07-01
|
| Series: | Environment International |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412021000982 |
| _version_ | 1818956963362373632 |
|---|---|
| author | Patrice Sutton Nicholas Chartres Swati D.G. Rayasam Natalyn Daniels Juleen Lam Eman Maghrbi Tracey J. Woodruff |
| author_facet | Patrice Sutton Nicholas Chartres Swati D.G. Rayasam Natalyn Daniels Juleen Lam Eman Maghrbi Tracey J. Woodruff |
| author_sort | Patrice Sutton |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Background: Synthesizing environmental health science is crucial to taking action to protect public health. Procedures for evidence evaluation and integration are transitioning from “expert-based narrative” to “systematic” review methods. However, little is known about the methodology being utilized for either type of review. Objectives: To appraise the methodological strengths and weaknesses of a sample of “expert-based narrative” and “systematic” reviews in environmental health. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of multiple databases and identified relevant reviews using pre-specified eligibility criteria. We applied a modified version of the Literature Review Appraisal Toolkit (LRAT) to three environmental health topics that assessed the utility, validity and transparency of reviews. Results: We identified 29 reviews published between 2003 and 2019, of which 13 (45%) were self-identified as systematic reviews. Across every LRAT domain, systematic reviews received a higher percentage of “satisfactory” ratings compared to non-systematic reviews. In eight of these domains, there was a statistically significant difference observed between the two types of reviews and “satisfactory” ratings. Non-systematic reviews performed poorly with the majority receiving an “unsatisfactory” or “unclear” rating in 11 of the 12 domains. Systematic reviews performed poorly in six of the 12 domains; 10 (77%) did not state the reviews objectives or develop a protocol; eight (62%) did not state the roles and contribution of the authors, or evaluate the internal validity of the included evidence consistently using a valid method; and only seven (54%) stated a pre-defined definition of the evidence bar on which their conclusions were based, or had an author disclosure of interest statement. Discussion: Systematic reviews produced more useful, valid, and transparent conclusions compared to non-systematic reviews, but poorly conducted systematic reviews were prevalent. Ongoing development and implementation of empirically based systematic review methods are required in environmental health to ensure transparent and timely decision making to protect the public’s health. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-20T11:02:18Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-b1eca9f55b6042d59bae77f103ef68b7 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 0160-4120 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-20T11:02:18Z |
| publishDate | 2021-07-01 |
| publisher | Elsevier |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Environment International |
| spelling | doaj.art-b1eca9f55b6042d59bae77f103ef68b72022-12-21T19:43:00ZengElsevierEnvironment International0160-41202021-07-01152106473Reviews in environmental health: How systematic are they?Patrice Sutton0Nicholas Chartres1Swati D.G. Rayasam2Natalyn Daniels3Juleen Lam4Eman Maghrbi5Tracey J. Woodruff6UCSF Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, Box 0132, 490 Illinois Street, Floor 10, San Francisco, CA 94143, United StatesUCSF Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, Box 0132, 490 Illinois Street, Floor 10, San Francisco, CA 94143, United StatesUCSF Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, Box 0132, 490 Illinois Street, Floor 10, San Francisco, CA 94143, United StatesUCSF Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, Box 0132, 490 Illinois Street, Floor 10, San Francisco, CA 94143, United StatesDepartment of Health Sciences, California State University East Bay, SF 533, 25800 Carlos Bee Blvd, Hayward, CA 94542, United StatesDepartment of Health Sciences, California State University East Bay, SF 533, 25800 Carlos Bee Blvd, Hayward, CA 94542, United StatesUCSF Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, Box 0132, 490 Illinois Street, Floor 10, San Francisco, CA 94143, United States; Corresponding author.Background: Synthesizing environmental health science is crucial to taking action to protect public health. Procedures for evidence evaluation and integration are transitioning from “expert-based narrative” to “systematic” review methods. However, little is known about the methodology being utilized for either type of review. Objectives: To appraise the methodological strengths and weaknesses of a sample of “expert-based narrative” and “systematic” reviews in environmental health. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of multiple databases and identified relevant reviews using pre-specified eligibility criteria. We applied a modified version of the Literature Review Appraisal Toolkit (LRAT) to three environmental health topics that assessed the utility, validity and transparency of reviews. Results: We identified 29 reviews published between 2003 and 2019, of which 13 (45%) were self-identified as systematic reviews. Across every LRAT domain, systematic reviews received a higher percentage of “satisfactory” ratings compared to non-systematic reviews. In eight of these domains, there was a statistically significant difference observed between the two types of reviews and “satisfactory” ratings. Non-systematic reviews performed poorly with the majority receiving an “unsatisfactory” or “unclear” rating in 11 of the 12 domains. Systematic reviews performed poorly in six of the 12 domains; 10 (77%) did not state the reviews objectives or develop a protocol; eight (62%) did not state the roles and contribution of the authors, or evaluate the internal validity of the included evidence consistently using a valid method; and only seven (54%) stated a pre-defined definition of the evidence bar on which their conclusions were based, or had an author disclosure of interest statement. Discussion: Systematic reviews produced more useful, valid, and transparent conclusions compared to non-systematic reviews, but poorly conducted systematic reviews were prevalent. Ongoing development and implementation of empirically based systematic review methods are required in environmental health to ensure transparent and timely decision making to protect the public’s health.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412021000982Systematic reviewMethodsBiasEnvironmental healthHazard identificationRisk assessment |
| spellingShingle | Patrice Sutton Nicholas Chartres Swati D.G. Rayasam Natalyn Daniels Juleen Lam Eman Maghrbi Tracey J. Woodruff Reviews in environmental health: How systematic are they? Environment International Systematic review Methods Bias Environmental health Hazard identification Risk assessment |
| title | Reviews in environmental health: How systematic are they? |
| title_full | Reviews in environmental health: How systematic are they? |
| title_fullStr | Reviews in environmental health: How systematic are they? |
| title_full_unstemmed | Reviews in environmental health: How systematic are they? |
| title_short | Reviews in environmental health: How systematic are they? |
| title_sort | reviews in environmental health how systematic are they |
| topic | Systematic review Methods Bias Environmental health Hazard identification Risk assessment |
| url | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412021000982 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT patricesutton reviewsinenvironmentalhealthhowsystematicarethey AT nicholaschartres reviewsinenvironmentalhealthhowsystematicarethey AT swatidgrayasam reviewsinenvironmentalhealthhowsystematicarethey AT natalyndaniels reviewsinenvironmentalhealthhowsystematicarethey AT juleenlam reviewsinenvironmentalhealthhowsystematicarethey AT emanmaghrbi reviewsinenvironmentalhealthhowsystematicarethey AT traceyjwoodruff reviewsinenvironmentalhealthhowsystematicarethey |