Evidence Synthesis of Observational Studies in Environmental Health: Lessons Learned from a Systematic Review on Traffic-Related Air Pollution.
Journal
Environmental health perspectives
ISSN: 1552-9924
Titre abrégé: Environ Health Perspect
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0330411
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2023
Nov 2023
Historique:
medline:
27
11
2023
pubmed:
22
11
2023
entrez:
22
11
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
There is a long tradition in environmental health of using frameworks for evidence synthesis, such as those of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for its Integrated Science Assessments and the International Agency for Research on Cancer Monographs. The framework, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE), was developed for evidence synthesis in clinical medicine. The U.S. Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT) elaborated an approach for evidence synthesis in environmental health building on GRADE. We applied a modified OHAT approach and a broader "narrative" assessment to assess the level of confidence in a large systematic review on traffic-related air pollution and health outcomes. We discuss several challenges with the OHAT approach and its implementation and suggest improvements for synthesizing evidence from observational studies in environmental health. We consider the determination of confidence using a formal rating scheme of up- and downgrading of certain factors, the treatment of every factor as equally important, and the lower initial confidence rating of observational studies to be fundamental issues in the OHAT approach. We argue that some observational studies can offer high-confidence evidence in environmental health. We note that heterogeneity in magnitude of effect estimates should generally not weaken the confidence in the evidence, and consistency of associations across study designs, populations, and exposure assessment methods may strengthen confidence in the evidence. We mention that publication bias should be explored beyond statistical methods and is likely limited when large and collaborative studies comprise most of the evidence and when accrued over several decades. We propose to identify possible key biases, their most likely direction, and their potential impacts on the results. We think that the OHAT approach and other GRADE-type frameworks require substantial modification to align better with features of environmental health questions and the studies that address them. We emphasize that a broader, "narrative" evidence assessment based on the systematic review may complement a formal GRADE-type evaluation. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP11532.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
UNASSIGNED
There is a long tradition in environmental health of using frameworks for evidence synthesis, such as those of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for its Integrated Science Assessments and the International Agency for Research on Cancer Monographs. The framework, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE), was developed for evidence synthesis in clinical medicine. The U.S. Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT) elaborated an approach for evidence synthesis in environmental health building on GRADE.
METHODS
UNASSIGNED
We applied a modified OHAT approach and a broader "narrative" assessment to assess the level of confidence in a large systematic review on traffic-related air pollution and health outcomes.
DISCUSSION
UNASSIGNED
We discuss several challenges with the OHAT approach and its implementation and suggest improvements for synthesizing evidence from observational studies in environmental health. We consider the determination of confidence using a formal rating scheme of up- and downgrading of certain factors, the treatment of every factor as equally important, and the lower initial confidence rating of observational studies to be fundamental issues in the OHAT approach. We argue that some observational studies can offer high-confidence evidence in environmental health. We note that heterogeneity in magnitude of effect estimates should generally not weaken the confidence in the evidence, and consistency of associations across study designs, populations, and exposure assessment methods may strengthen confidence in the evidence. We mention that publication bias should be explored beyond statistical methods and is likely limited when large and collaborative studies comprise most of the evidence and when accrued over several decades. We propose to identify possible key biases, their most likely direction, and their potential impacts on the results. We think that the OHAT approach and other GRADE-type frameworks require substantial modification to align better with features of environmental health questions and the studies that address them. We emphasize that a broader, "narrative" evidence assessment based on the systematic review may complement a formal GRADE-type evaluation. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP11532.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37991444
doi: 10.1289/EHP11532
pmc: PMC10664749
doi:
Types de publication
Systematic Review
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
115002Références
J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Jul;87:4-13
pubmed: 28529184
Evid Based Med. 2017 Jun;22(3):85-87
pubmed: 28320705
Syst Rev. 2018 Dec 21;7(1):242
pubmed: 30577874
Environ Int. 2021 Oct;155:106605
pubmed: 34051644
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008 Nov 27;8:79
pubmed: 19036172
Environ Int. 2020 Nov;144:105998
pubmed: 33032072
Environ Int. 2016 Jul-Aug;92-93:605-10
pubmed: 27156196
Environ Int. 2016 Jul-Aug;92-93:585-9
pubmed: 27126781
Environ Int. 2023 Jun;176:107916
pubmed: 37210806
BMJ Evid Based Med. 2018 Jun;23(3):84-86
pubmed: 29650725
Environ Health Perspect. 2020 Sep;128(9):95002
pubmed: 32924579
Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2023 Jan;247:114079
pubmed: 36446272
Proc R Soc Med. 1965 May;58:295-300
pubmed: 14283879
BMJ. 2008 Apr 26;336(7650):924-6
pubmed: 18436948
Int J Epidemiol. 2016 Dec 1;45(6):1866-1886
pubmed: 28108528
Epidemiology. 2019 May;30(3):311-316
pubmed: 30789434
Environ Int. 2020 Oct;143:105974
pubmed: 32703584
Ann Intern Med. 2016 Dec 6;165(11):810-811
pubmed: 27654340
Environ Health Perspect. 2014 Jul;122(7):711-8
pubmed: 24755067
Am J Epidemiol. 2019 Sep 1;188(9):1581-1585
pubmed: 31145434
Environ Int. 2016 Jul-Aug;92-93:611-6
pubmed: 26827182
BMJ. 1992 Oct 3;305(6857):786-8
pubmed: 1422354
Int J Public Health. 2023 May 31;68:1605718
pubmed: 37325174
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2020 Jan 1;112(1):30-37
pubmed: 31498409
Environ Health Perspect. 2014 Oct;122(10):1007-14
pubmed: 24968373
Biometrics. 2018 Sep;74(3):785-794
pubmed: 29141096
Syst Rev. 2020 Oct 29;9(1):249
pubmed: 33121530
Occup Environ Med. 2021 Sep;78(9):621-622
pubmed: 34158356
Am J Public Health. 2001 Nov;91(11):1749-57
pubmed: 11684593
JAMA. 1992 Jul 8;268(2):240-8
pubmed: 1535110
Environ Int. 2022 Jun;164:107262
pubmed: 35569389
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2017 Aug;88:332-337
pubmed: 28526659