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.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|---|
| http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8118386 | PMC |
| http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2021.106473 | DOI Listing |
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
Effectiveness of oral health promotion in children and adolescents through behaviour change interventions: A scoping review.
PLoS One
January 2025
Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of the Western Cape, Cape Town, South Africa.
Objective: To explore the interventions for change in oral health behaviour that are effective in improving oral health behaviours in 8 to 18-year-old children during oral health promotion.
Methods: The Joanna Briggs Institute framework of evidence synthesis for conducting a scoping review was implemented for the methodology. Included studies related to the objective, measured clinical or non-clinical outcomes, were in English, 2011-2023, and were experimental, observational or reviews.
Background & Aims: This systematic literature review of qualitative findings aims to identify the perceived barriers and enablers for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) surveillance from patient and clinician perspectives.
Methods: A systematic search of databases using key term combinations with the following inclusion criteria: 1) qualitative and quantitative (survey) studies exploring barriers and enablers of HCC surveillance, and 2) qualitative and quantitative (survey) studies exploring barriers and enablers of enagagement in clinical care for patients with cirrhosis and/or viral hepatitis.
Results: The search returned 445 citations: 371 did not meet the study criteria and were excluded.
Comparative effectiveness of massage combined with lifestyle intervention and lifestyle intervention alone for simple obesity: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Medicine (Baltimore)
January 2025
Department of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Baicheng Medical College, Baicheng, Jilin Province, China.
Background: This study aimed to assess the comparative effectiveness of massage combined with lifestyle intervention and lifestyle intervention alone in patients with simple obesity.
Methods: The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, VIP Database, and Wanfang Data were searched. Meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines.
Efficacy of modified posterior shoulder stretching exercises on shoulder function in subacromial impingement syndrome: A comprehensive meta-analysis.
Medicine (Baltimore)
January 2025
Department of Tuina and Rehabilitation Medicine, Hubei Provincial Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Wuhan, China.
Background: Subacromial impingement syndrome (SIS) is a common cause of shoulder pain and dysfunction. Modified posterior shoulder stretching exercises have been proposed as a treatment method aimed at improving shoulder function and reducing pain in patients with SIS. However, the efficacy of these exercises remains controversial, necessitating a systematic meta-analysis to comprehensively evaluate their effectiveness.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFImpact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health of Nursing students: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Medicine (Baltimore)
January 2025
Centro Universitario de Enfermería Cruz Roja, University of Seville, Seville, Spain.
Background: There is an increased prevalence of mental health problems in various population groups as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and its consequences, especially regarding anxiety, stress, depression, fear, and sleep disturbances, require to be investigated longitudinally.
Objective: This study aimed to determine the impact that the COVID-19 pandemic had on the mental health of Nursing students, as well as to examine other associated factors such as anxiety, fear, sleep disturbances, and coping strategies.
Method: This systematic review and meta-analysis were designed following the PRISMA guidelines and were registered in PROSPERO with code CRD42024541904.
Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!