Cited by 427Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsHealth, Environment, Cognitive AgingStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

The Navigation Guide Systematic Review Methodology: A Rigorous and Transparent Method for Translating Environmental Health Science into Better Health Outcomes

Open access
Woodruff, Tracey J., Sutton, Patrice·2014·Environmental Health Perspectives

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Synthesizing what is known about the environmental drivers of health is instrumental to taking prevention-oriented action. Methods of research synthesis commonly used in environmental health lag behind systematic review methods developed in the clinical sciences over the past 20 years. OBJECTIVES: We sought to develop a proof of concept of the "Navigation Guide," a systematic and transparent method of research synthesis in environmental health. DISCUSSION: The Navigation Guide methodology builds on best practices in research synthesis in evidence-based medicine and environmental health. Key points of departure from current methods of expert-based narrative review prevalent in environmental health include a prespecified protocol, standardized and transparent documentation including expert judgment, a comprehensive search strategy, assessment of "risk of bias," and separation of the science from values and preferences. Key points of departure from evidence-based medicine include assigning a "moderate" quality rating to human observational studies and combining diverse evidence streams. CONCLUSIONS: The Navigation Guide methodology is a systematic and rigorous approach to research synthesis that has been developed to reduce bias and maximize transparency in the evaluation of environmental health information. Although novel aspects of the method will require further development and validation, our findings demonstrated that improved methods of research synthesis under development at the National Toxicology Program and under consideration by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency are fully achievable. The institutionalization of robust methods of systematic and transparent review would provide a concrete mechanism for linking science to timely action to prevent harm.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1289/ehp.1307175

Cites

90 of 90 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. NRC (National Research Council). 2008 Phthalates and Cumulative Risk Assessment: The Task Ahead. Washington, DC:National Academies Press. Available: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12528 [accessed 22 August 2014] 25009926
  2. NRC (National Research Council). 2011 Review of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Draft IRIS Assessment of Formaldehyde. Washington, DC:National Academies Press. Available: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13142 [accessed 23 August 2014] 25032397
  3. Peterson ED. 2008 Research methods to speed the development of better evidence—the registries example. In Evidence-Based Medicine and the Changing Nature of Health Care. 2007 IOM Annual Meeting Summary (McClellan MB, McGinnis JM, Nabel EG, Olsen LM, eds) Washington, DC:National Academies Press 132 141
  4. U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2013a Systematic Review Workshop. Available: http://www.epa.gov/IRIS/irisworkshops/systematicreview/ [accessed 21 May 2013]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Woodruff, T. J., & Sutton, P.
Affiliations
University of California, San Francisco (US)
Corresponding author
Woodruff, Tracey J.
Venue
Environmental Health Perspectives
Published
2014-06-25
Volume
122
Issue
10
Pages
1007-1014
ISSN
  • 0091-6765 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-9924
OpenAlex
W1997898721
Cited by
427
References
89
Citations by year
2026: 36 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 48 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 43 · 2021: 59 · 2020: 52 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 33 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 7
FWCI
5.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Environmental Health Perspectives (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (RD-83543301)
  • New York Community Trust
  • Heinz Endowments
  • Johnson Family Foundation
  • Rose Foundation for Communities and the Environment
  • Kaiser Permanente
  • University of California, San Francisco
  • National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (ESO22841, ES018135, P01ES022841, ES022841, P20ES018135)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Health, Environment, Cognitive Aging
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
Keywords
systematic review methodology, risk of bias assessment, expert opinion, science-policy interface, National Toxicology Program, Environmental Protection Agency
MeSH terms
Decision Support Techniques, Environmental Health, Humans, Review Literature as Topic, Hazardous Substances, Bias, Interdisciplinary Communication

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review