Use of Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis in Environmental Health Epidemiology: a Systematic Review and Comparison with Guidelines

Curr Environ Health Rep. 2015 Sep;2(3):272-83. doi: 10.1007/s40572-015-0062-z.

Abstract

Systematic review (SR) and meta-analysis (MA) have potential to contribute substantially to environmental health (EH) risk assessment and policy-making, provided study questions are clear and methods sound. We undertook a systematic review of the published epidemiological literature for studies using both SR and MA examining associations between chronic low-dose chemical exposures and adverse health outcomes in general populations and compared actual methods and reporting with a checklist based on available published guidelines. We identified 48 EH SRMAs meeting these criteria. Associations were mainly positive and statistically significant, often involving large populations. A majority of studies followed most general SRMA guidance, although we identified weaknesses in problem formulation, study search, selection and data extraction, and integrating policy implications. Fewer studies followed EH-specific SRMA recommendations, particularly regarding exposure heterogeneity and other risks of bias. Development and adoption of EH-specific SRMA guidelines would contribute to strengthening these tools for public health decision-making.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
  • Review
  • Systematic Review

MeSH terms

  • Air Pollution / adverse effects
  • Environmental Exposure / adverse effects
  • Environmental Health*
  • Epidemiologic Studies*
  • Evidence-Based Medicine / methods
  • Guideline Adherence*
  • Hazardous Substances / adverse effects
  • Humans
  • Meta-Analysis as Topic*
  • Metals, Heavy / adverse effects
  • Neoplasms / etiology
  • Public Health
  • Review Literature as Topic*
  • Risk Assessment / methods

Substances

  • Hazardous Substances
  • Metals, Heavy