空气污染暴露与生殖健康和儿童健康系统综述中使用的证据评级系统:方法学调查。

IF 5.3 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Sophie K F Michel, Aishwarya Atmakuri, Ondine S von Ehrenstein
{"title":"空气污染暴露与生殖健康和儿童健康系统综述中使用的证据评级系统:方法学调查。","authors":"Sophie K F Michel, Aishwarya Atmakuri, Ondine S von Ehrenstein","doi":"10.1186/s12940-024-01069-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Translating findings from systematic reviews assessing associations between environmental exposures and reproductive and children's health into policy recommendations requires valid and transparent evidence grading.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We 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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighteen 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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Establishing 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":11686,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10976715/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Systems for rating bodies of evidence used in systematic reviews of air pollution exposure and reproductive and children's health: a methodological survey.\",\"authors\":\"Sophie K F Michel, Aishwarya Atmakuri, Ondine S von Ehrenstein\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12940-024-01069-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Translating findings from systematic reviews assessing associations between environmental exposures and reproductive and children's health into policy recommendations requires valid and transparent evidence grading.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We 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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighteen 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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Establishing 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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11686,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental Health\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10976715/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-024-01069-z\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Health","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-024-01069-z","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:要将评估环境暴露与生殖健康和儿童健康之间关系的系统综述结果转化为政策建议,需要对证据进行有效、透明的分级:我们的目标是通过对空气污染研究进行方法学调查,包括对所有相关系统综述进行全面搜索和评估,对环境暴露与生殖/儿童健康结果的系统综述中使用的证据进行分级的系统进行评估。为了评估用于评定主要研究的内部有效性和对证据体(多项研究)进行分级的框架,我们考虑了是否以及如何针对生殖/儿童的环境健康来操作特定的标准或领域,例如,是否针对易受影响的发育阶段来评估暴露评估的时机:在 177 篇系统综述中,有 18 篇(9.8%)使用了正式的证据分级系统;对主要研究使用了 15 种不同的内部有效性评估工具,对证据体使用了 9 种不同的分级系统,并对引用的方法进行了多种修改。纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表(Newcastle Ottawa Scale, NOS)和建议、评估、发展与评价分级(GRADE)框架都不是专门为该领域开发的,但分别是最常用的单项研究和证据体分级方法。总体而言,已确定的方法在其全面性和对生殖/儿童环境健康研究的适用性方面存在很大差异:结论:更广泛地使用更合适的证据分级方法有助于加强系统综述方法,也有助于有效地制定和实施环境公共卫生政策,特别是保护孕妇和儿童的政策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Systems for rating bodies of evidence used in systematic reviews of air pollution exposure and reproductive and children's health: a methodological survey.

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

Methods: We 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.

Results: Eighteen 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.

Conclusion: Establishing 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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Environmental Health
Environmental Health 环境科学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
10.10
自引率
1.70%
发文量
115
审稿时长
3.0 months
期刊介绍: Environmental Health publishes manuscripts on all aspects of environmental and occupational medicine and related studies in toxicology and epidemiology. Environmental Health is aimed at scientists and practitioners in all areas of environmental science where human health and well-being are involved, either directly or indirectly. Environmental Health is a public health journal serving the public health community and scientists working on matters of public health interest and importance pertaining to the environment.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信