The DOI matches its Crossref record; 89 of the 89 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Navigation Guide Systematic Review Methodology: A Rigorous and Transparent Method for Translating Environmental Health Science into Better Health Outcomes
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“such methods have only recently been developed and utilized in environmental health sciences [23–30].”
From A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Multiple Airborne Pollutants and Autism Spectrum Disorder (2016) · cites this paper as [26]
In the citing paper
“Recently-developed tools for this purpose have moved away from numeric scores based on checklists (which often combined elements of risk of bias with other considerations such as of applicability) to tools based on assessments within specific domains of bias.”
From A tool to assess risk of bias in non-randomized follow-up studies of exposure effects (ROBINS-E) (2024) · cites this paper as Woodruff and Sutton, 2014
In the citing paper
“Several such tools for observational epidemiologic studies provide significant methodological advances over previously used tools (National Toxicology Program, 2015, 2015; Woodruff and Sutton, 2014; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2022).”
From A tool to assess risk of bias in non-randomized follow-up studies of exposure effects (ROBINS-E) (2024) · cites this paper as Woodruff and Sutton, 2014
In the citing paper
“According to the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the US National Toxicology Program, funding source is recommended as a factor to consider when evaluating risk of bias of individual studies for selective reporting and then again for evaluating the body of evidence for publication bias [67, 68, 70].”
In the citing paper
“The Navigation Guide already includes both as a risk of bias domain in both human and animal studies [67, 68], while Cochrane and GRADE are considering it, but have not yet adopted it [69].”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series
(2008) · doi:10.1002/9780470712184 · Cited by 25,048
GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations
Guyatt, G. H., Oxman, A. D., Vist, G. E., Kunz, R., Falck-Ytter, Y., Alonso-Coello, P., & Schünemann, H. J. (2008) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.ad · Cited by 23,305
GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction—GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables
Guyatt, G., Oxman, A. D., Akl, E. A., Kunz, R., Vist, G., Brozek, J., Norris, S., Falck-Ytter, Y., Glasziou, P., & deBeer, H. (2011) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026 · Cited by 10,681
GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence
Balshem, H., Helfand, M., Schünemann, H. J., Oxman, A. D., Kunz, R., Brozek, J., Vist, G. E., Falck-Ytter, Y., Meerpohl, J., & Norris, S. (2011) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.015 · Cited by 8,285
The environment and disease: association or causation?
Hill, A. B. (2015) · Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · doi:10.1177/0141076814562718 · Cited by 7,804
The Environment and Disease: Association or Causation?
Hill, A. B. (1965) · Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine · doi:10.1177/003591576505800503 · Cited by 6,974
(2008) · Cited by 3,790
Perfluoroalkyl Acids: A Review of Monitoring and Toxicological Findings
Lau, C., Anitole, K., Hodes, C., Lai, D., Pfahles-Hutchens, A., & Seed, J. (2007) · Toxicological Sciences · doi:10.1093/toxsci/kfm128 · Cited by 2,620
Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence
Chalmers, I., & Glasziou, P. (2009) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(09)60329-9 · Cited by 2,208
Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review
Lexchin, J., Bero, L. A., Djulbegovic, B., & Clark, O. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7400.1167 · Cited by 2,147
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Peterson ED., 2008, Research methods to speed the development of better evidence—the registries example., 132
- 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
Critical Review of Health Impacts of Wildfire Smoke Exposure
Reid, C. E., Brauer, M., Johnston, F. H., Jerrett, M., Balmes, J. R., & Elliott, C. T. (2016) · Environmental Health Perspectives · doi:10.1289/ehp.1409277 · Cited by 1,396
Morgan, R. L., Whaley, P., Thayer, K. A., & Schünemann, H. J. (2018) · Environment International · doi:10.1016/j.envint.2018.07.015 · Cited by 1,424
A tool to assess risk of bias in non-randomized follow-up studies of exposure effects (ROBINS-E)
Higgins, J. P. T., Morgan, R. L., Rooney, A. A., Taylor, K. W., Thayer, K. A., Silva, R. A., Lemeris, C., Akl, E. A., Bateson, T. F., Berkman, N. D., et al. (2024) · Environment International · doi:10.1016/j.envint.2024.108602 · Cited by 1,022
“Several such tools for observational epidemiologic studies provide significant methodological advances over previously used tools (National Toxicology Program, 2015, 2015; Woodruff and Sutton, 2014; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2022).”
Haddaway, N. R., Macura, B., Whaley, P., & Pullin, A. S. (2018) · Environmental Evidence · doi:10.1186/s13750-018-0121-7 · Cited by 946
Heat exposure and cardiovascular health outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Liu, J., Varghese, B. M., Hansen, A. L., Zhang, Y., Driscoll, T., Morgan, G. G., Dear, K. B. G., Gourley, M., Capon, A. G., & Bi, P. (2022) · The Lancet Planetary Health · doi:10.1016/s2542-5196(22)00117-6 · Cited by 778
Metadata
- Authors
- Woodruff, T. J., & Sutton, P.
- Affiliations
- University of California, San Francisco (US)
- Corresponding author
- Woodruff, Tracey J.
- ORCID
- Woodruff, Tracey J.
- Venue
- Environmental Health Perspectives
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2014-06-25
- Volume
- 122
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1007-1014
- ISSN
- 0091-6765 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-9924
- PMC
- PMC4181919
- 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
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- public-domain
- creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (vor, 1283 d)
- 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
