Cargando…

Assessing the Treatment of Potential Effect Modifiers Informing World Health Organisation Guidelines for Environmental Noise

Methodologies employed in the production of systematic reviews used to inform policy must be robust. In formulating the recent World Health Organisation (WHO) Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region, seven systematic reviews of evidence were commissioned to assess the relationship bet...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Douglas, Owen, Murphy, Enda
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6982344/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31906432
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17010315
_version_ 1783491293967548416
author Douglas, Owen
Murphy, Enda
author_facet Douglas, Owen
Murphy, Enda
author_sort Douglas, Owen
collection PubMed
description Methodologies employed in the production of systematic reviews used to inform policy must be robust. In formulating the recent World Health Organisation (WHO) Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region, seven systematic reviews of evidence were commissioned to assess the relationship between environmental noise exposure and a range of health outcomes, six of which were nonauditory. Within the methodological guidance document devised for these reviews, inclusion and exclusion criteria for individual studies and existing reviews were applied in accordance with the Population-Exposure-Comparator-Outcome-Study (PECOS) framework for the evaluation of evidence. Specific criteria were defined for “populations” and source-specific “exposure”, but no criteria were defined for the treatment of potential “effect modifiers”. Furthermore, no criteria were set for the treatment of combined exposures. Employing a custom-designed assessment matrix, we assess the treatment of potential effect modifiers in the formulation of the aforementioned systematic reviews, all published in a Special Issue of the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (IJERPH), titled “WHO Noise and Health Evidence Reviews”. We identify substantial methodological variation in their treatment and propose the differentiation of “moderators” and “mediators” from “confounders” as the basis for criteria development—including combined exposures—for future systematic reviews.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6982344
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69823442020-02-07 Assessing the Treatment of Potential Effect Modifiers Informing World Health Organisation Guidelines for Environmental Noise Douglas, Owen Murphy, Enda Int J Environ Res Public Health Discussion Methodologies employed in the production of systematic reviews used to inform policy must be robust. In formulating the recent World Health Organisation (WHO) Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region, seven systematic reviews of evidence were commissioned to assess the relationship between environmental noise exposure and a range of health outcomes, six of which were nonauditory. Within the methodological guidance document devised for these reviews, inclusion and exclusion criteria for individual studies and existing reviews were applied in accordance with the Population-Exposure-Comparator-Outcome-Study (PECOS) framework for the evaluation of evidence. Specific criteria were defined for “populations” and source-specific “exposure”, but no criteria were defined for the treatment of potential “effect modifiers”. Furthermore, no criteria were set for the treatment of combined exposures. Employing a custom-designed assessment matrix, we assess the treatment of potential effect modifiers in the formulation of the aforementioned systematic reviews, all published in a Special Issue of the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (IJERPH), titled “WHO Noise and Health Evidence Reviews”. We identify substantial methodological variation in their treatment and propose the differentiation of “moderators” and “mediators” from “confounders” as the basis for criteria development—including combined exposures—for future systematic reviews. MDPI 2020-01-02 2020-01 /pmc/articles/PMC6982344/ /pubmed/31906432 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17010315 Text en © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Discussion
Douglas, Owen
Murphy, Enda
Assessing the Treatment of Potential Effect Modifiers Informing World Health Organisation Guidelines for Environmental Noise
title Assessing the Treatment of Potential Effect Modifiers Informing World Health Organisation Guidelines for Environmental Noise
title_full Assessing the Treatment of Potential Effect Modifiers Informing World Health Organisation Guidelines for Environmental Noise
title_fullStr Assessing the Treatment of Potential Effect Modifiers Informing World Health Organisation Guidelines for Environmental Noise
title_full_unstemmed Assessing the Treatment of Potential Effect Modifiers Informing World Health Organisation Guidelines for Environmental Noise
title_short Assessing the Treatment of Potential Effect Modifiers Informing World Health Organisation Guidelines for Environmental Noise
title_sort assessing the treatment of potential effect modifiers informing world health organisation guidelines for environmental noise
topic Discussion
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6982344/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31906432
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17010315
work_keys_str_mv AT douglasowen assessingthetreatmentofpotentialeffectmodifiersinformingworldhealthorganisationguidelinesforenvironmentalnoise
AT murphyenda assessingthetreatmentofpotentialeffectmodifiersinformingworldhealthorganisationguidelinesforenvironmentalnoise