Ambient air pollution epidemiology systematic review and meta-analysis: A review of reporting and methods practice |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Department of Health Policy & Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, United States;2. Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment, Department of OB/GYN & RS, University of California, San Francisco, United States;3. Environmental Health Sciences Department, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, United States;4. Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Emory University, United States;1. Electricité de France (EDF) R&D, National Hydraulic and Environment Laboratory, 6 quai Watier, 78400 Chatou, France;2. AgroParisTech, UMR ECOSYS, 78850 Thiverval-Grignon, France;3. INRA, UMR ECOSYS, 78850 Thiverval-Grignon, France;4. Swiss Centre for Applied Human Toxicology (SCAHT) Directorate, Regulatory Toxicology Unit, Missionstrasse 64, 4055 Basel, Switzerland;1. Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University, Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C14, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada;2. Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, P.O. Box 12233, Mail Drop K2-02, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA;3. Charles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney, D17, The Hub, 6th floor, New South Wales, 2006, Australia;4. Department of Public Health and Policy, University of Liverpool, L69 3GB, United Kingdom;5. Division of Gastroenterology, Case Western Reserve University and Louis Stokes VA Medical Center, 10701 East Blvd., Cleveland, OH 44106, USA;6. Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, New South Wales 2006, Australia;7. National Health and Medical Research Council, 16 Marcus Clarke Street, Canberra City, ACT 2601, Australia;8. Departments of SYRCLE and Anesthesiology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Geert Grooteplein-Noord 29, Route 231, 6525 GA Nijmegen, The Netherlands;9. Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Room J1B-211, P.O. Box 22660, 1100 DD Amsterdam, The Netherlands;10. Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center, Ramazzini Institute, Via Saliceto 3, Bentivoglio, Bologna, P.O. Box 40133, Italy;11. Departments of Medicine/Nephrology and Biomedical & Health Informatics, University of Missouri-Kansas City, School of Medicine, M4-303, 2411 Holmes St., Kansas City, Missouri 64108-2792, USA;12. Institute for Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, University of Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377 Munich, Germany;13. Bruyere Research Institute and Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada;14. Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N. Wolfe Street, E6644, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA;15. Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment, University of California-San Francisco, 550 16th Street, San Francisco, CA 94143, USA;p. Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Cochrane Work, PO Box 310, 70101 Kuopio, Finland;q. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, McMaster University, Health Sciences Centre, Room 3N52A, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada;r. Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C14, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada |
| |
| Abstract: | BackgroundSystematic review and meta-analysis (SRMA) are increasingly employed in environmental health (EH) epidemiology and, provided methods and reporting are sound, contribute to translating science evidence to policy. Ambient air pollution (AAP) is both among the leading environmental causes of mortality and morbidity worldwide, and of growing policy relevance due to health co-benefits associated with greenhouse gas emissions reductions.ObjectivesWe reviewed the published AAP SRMA literature (2009 to mid-2015), and evaluated the consistency of methods, reporting and evidence evaluation using a 22-point questionnaire developed from available best-practice consensus guidelines and emerging recommendations for EH. Our goal was to contribute to enhancing the utility of AAP SRMAs to EH policy.Results and discussionWe identified 43 studies that used both SR and MA techniques to examine associations between the AAPs PM2.5, PM10, NO2, SO2, CO and O3, and various health outcomes. On average AAP SRMAs partially or thoroughly addressed 16 of 22 questions (range 10–21), and thoroughly addressed 13 of 22 (range 5–19). We found evidence of an improving trend over the period. However, we observed some weaknesses, particularly infrequent formal reviews of underlying study quality and risk-of-bias that correlated with lower frequency of thorough evaluation for key study quality parameters. Several other areas for enhanced reporting are highlighted.ConclusionsThe AAP SRMA literature, in particular more recent studies, indicate broad concordance with current and emerging best practice guidance. Development of an EH-specific SRMA consensus statement including a risk-of-bias evaluation tool, would be a contribution to enhanced reliability and robustness as well as policy utility. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
