RF Safe

Invited Perspective: Why Systematic Reviews, Scoping Reviews, and Evidence-to-Decision Frameworks

Environmental Health Perspectives · 2024 · Unclear · Insufficient evidence

← Research stream
UnclearInsufficient evidencePaper 197

Perspective arguing that systematic reviews, scoping reviews, and evidence-to-decision frameworks are critical for transparent and science-based environmental health decision-making, and noting that biased teams or misuse of the term "systematic review" in re…

Study snapshot

PublicationEnvironmental Health Perspectives · 2024
Study typepolicy
Reported directionUnclear
Evidence ratingInsufficient

Abstract

Invited Perspective: Why Systematic Reviews, Scoping Reviews, and Evidence-to-Decision Frameworks Are Critical for Transparent, Consistent, Equitable, and Science-Based Decision-Making in Environmental Health My note: Systematic reviews require a multitude of macro- and micro-decisions. When conducted by biased investigative teams, systematic reviews generate erroneous conclusions and policy implications. This applies to EMF as well as chemical exposures. Chartres N, Joglekar R. Invited Perspective: Why Systematic Reviews, Scoping Reviews, and Evidence-to- Decision Frameworks Are Critical for Transparent, Consistent, Equitable, and Science-Based Decision- Making in Environmental Health. Environ Health Perspect. 2024 Mar;132(3):31304. doi: 10.1289/EHP14346. No abstract Excerpt "... systematic review is simultaneously being corrupted as agencies, including the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as part of implementing the amended the Toxic Substances Control Act, are appropriating the term in regulatory decision-making without meeting many of the standards of an empirically based systematic review. 4,9– 12 This could result in rulemakings that underestimate the true risk of harm posed by toxic chemical exposures, which could have devastating implications for vulnerable populations, including low-wealth communities of color. 11" Open access paper: ehp.niehs.nih.gov

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typepolicy
Effect directionunclear
PopulationNot supplied
Sample sizeNot supplied
ExposureNot supplied
Evidence strengthInsufficientConfidence: 66% · Peer reviewed: unknown

Main findings

Perspective arguing that systematic reviews, scoping reviews, and evidence-to-decision frameworks are critical for transparent and science-based environmental health decision-making, and noting that biased teams or misuse of the term "systematic review" in regulatory contexts can lead to erroneous conclusions and underestimated harms.

Limitations

  • No abstract provided in the supplied text.
  • Perspective/commentary rather than an empirical study; no specific exposure-outcome results reported.
View raw extracted JSON
{
  "study_type": "policy",
  "exposure": {
    "band": null,
    "source": null,
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": null,
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [],
  "main_findings": "Perspective arguing that systematic reviews, scoping reviews, and evidence-to-decision frameworks are critical for transparent and science-based environmental health decision-making, and noting that biased teams or misuse of the term \"systematic review\" in regulatory contexts can lead to erroneous conclusions and underestimated harms.",
  "effect_direction": "unclear",
  "limitations": [
    "No abstract provided in the supplied text.",
    "Perspective/commentary rather than an empirical study; no specific exposure-outcome results reported."
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "insufficient",
  "confidence": 0.66,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "unknown",
  "keywords": [
    "systematic review",
    "scoping review",
    "evidence-to-decision frameworks",
    "environmental health",
    "regulatory decision-making",
    "bias",
    "EPA",
    "TCEQ",
    "Toxic Substances Control Act"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": []
}
AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract and metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This material is for informational purposes and is not medical advice.

Identifiers and source

DOI: 10.1289/ehp14346
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library