Health & Environmental Research Online (HERO)


ISA-NOx

Show Project Details Hide Project Details
8,422 References Were Found:

The "refereed" or "peer review" status of a journal comes from the Ulrichsweb Global Serials Directory (http://ulrichsweb.serialssolutions.com/), as supplied by the publisher. The term refers to the system of critical evaluation of manuscripts/articles by professional colleagues or peers. The content of refereed publications is sanctioned, vetted, or otherwise approved by a peer-review or editorial board. The peer-review and evaluation system is utilized to protect, maintain, and raise the quality of scholarly material published in serials. Publications subject to the referee process are assumed, then, to contain higher quality content than those that are not.
Peer Reviewed Journal Article

The methodological quality assessment tools for preclinical and clinical studies, systematic review and meta-analysis, and clinical practice guideline: a systematic review

Authors: Zeng, X; Zhang, Y; Kwong, JS; Zhang, C; Li, S; Sun, F; Niu, Y; Du, L (2015) Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine 8:2-10. HERO ID: 2823562

[Less] OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the methodological assessment tools for pre-clinical . . . [More] OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the methodological assessment tools for pre-clinical and clinical studies, systematic review and meta-analysis, and clinical practice guideline.

METHODS: We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Reviewers Manual, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP), Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN), and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) up to May 20th, 2014. Two authors selected studies and extracted data; quantitative analysis was performed to summarize the characteristics of included tools.

RESULTS: We included a total of 21 assessment tools for analysis. A number of tools were developed by academic organizations, and some were developed by only a small group of researchers. The JBI developed the highest number of methodological assessment tools, with CASP coming second. Tools for assessing the methodological quality of randomized controlled studies were most abundant. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias is the best available tool for assessing RCTs. For cohort and case-control studies, we recommend the use of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) is an excellent tool for assessing non-randomized interventional studies, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (ARHQ) methodology checklist is applicable for cross-sectional studies. For diagnostic accuracy test studies, the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool is recommended; the SYstematic Review Centre for Laboratory animal Experimentation (SYRCLE) risk of bias tool is available for assessing animal studies; Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) is a measurement tool for systematic reviews/meta-analyses; an 18-item tool has been developed for appraising case series studies, and the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation (AGREE)-II instrument is widely used to evaluate clinical practice guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS: We have successfully identified a variety of methodological assessment tools for different types of study design. However, further efforts in the development of critical appraisal tools are warranted since there is currently a lack of such tools for other fields, e.g. genetic studies, and some existing tools (nested case-control studies and case reports, for example) are in need of updating to be in line with current research practice and rigor. In addition, it is very important that all critical appraisal tools remain subjective and performance bias is effectively avoided.

Data/Software
Data/ Software

Table 5S-8. Corresponding risk estimates of ambient sulfur dioxide for hospital admissions for cardiovascular disease in studies conducting copollutants models with NO2 presented in Figure 5S-2.

Author: U.S. EPA (2015) HERO ID: 3001881


Technical Report
Technical Report

Supplemental table S1-1. Epidemiologic studies of health effects not evaluated in the ISA for oxides for nitrogen

Author: U.S. EPA (2015) [EPA Report] HERO ID: 1988303


Technical Report
Technical Report

Supplemental Table S5-1. Calculation of increments of oxides of nitrogen for standardizing epidemiologic effect estimates - short-term averages

Author: U.S. EPA (2015) HERO ID: 2525885


Technical Report
Technical Report

Supplemental Table S5-3. Studies of short-term exposure to oxides of nitrogen and respiratory hospital admissions and ED visits

Author: U.S. EPA (2015) [EPA Report] HERO ID: 2525887


Technical Report
Technical Report

Supplemental figure S5-1 associations of NO2 with respiratory effects in copollutant models with PM10 PM10_25 SO2 O3

Author: U.S. EPA (2015) HERO ID: 2525880


Technical Report
Technical Report

Supplemental Figure S5-2. Results of single-pollutant and copollutants models of short-term exposure to NO2 with and without PM and CVD HA

Author: U.S. EPA (2015) HERO ID: 2525881


Technical Report
Technical Report

Supplemental Figure S5-3. Results of single-pollutant and copollutants models of short-term exposure to NO2 with CO and without CO and CVD HA

Author: U.S. EPA (2015) HERO ID: 2525882


Technical Report
Technical Report

Supplemental Figure S5-4 Results of single-pollutant and copollutants models of short-term exposure to NO2 or NOX with and without O3 and hospital admissions CVD

Author: U.S. EPA (2015) HERO ID: 2525883


Technical Report
Technical Report

Supplemental Figure S5-5 Results of single-pollutant and copollutants models of short-term exposure to NO2 or NOX with and without SO2 and hospital admissions CVD

Author: U.S. EPA (2015) HERO ID: 2525884