Using systematic review methods to evaluate environmental public policy: methodological challenges and potential usefulness

2020 ◽  
Vol 105 ◽  
pp. 47-55 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matilda Miljand
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Public Policy ◽  
Potential Usefulness ◽  
Systematic Review Methods ◽  
Methodological Challenges ◽  
Environmental Public Policy

scholarly journals Educação Ambiental: Um Itinerário Persistente e Crítico de Expansão de Cidadania

2012 ◽  
Vol 20 (40) ◽  
pp. 95-122
Author(s):  
Francisco Teixeira ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Environmental Education ◽  
Essential Elements ◽  
Historical Evolution ◽  
Ethical Dimension ◽  
Global Environmental ◽  
Environmental Public Policy

The aim of this article is to disclose the historical evolution of the concept and practice of Environmental Education through the study of its national and international roots, essential elements, principles and respective dimensions. The persistent processes of its ‘re-conceptualization’, within global environmental (public) policy, and the inherent ethical dimension of the environmental education towards sustainability are also challenges here necessarily taken into consideration.

Developing, Implementing, and Applying Novel Techniques During Systematic Reviews of Primary Space Medicine Data

2021 ◽  
Vol 92 (8) ◽  
pp. 681-688
Author(s):  
Andrew Winnard ◽  
Nick Caplan ◽  
Claire Bruce-Martin ◽  
Patrick Swain ◽  
Rochelle Velho ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Quantitative Methods ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Synthesis Methods ◽  
Space Medicine ◽  
Systematic Review Methods ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Primary Space

BACKGROUND: The Aerospace Medicine Systematic Review Group was set up in 2016 to facilitate high quality and transparent synthesis of primary data to enable evidence-based practice. The group identified many research methods specific to space medicine that need consideration for systematic review methods. The group has developed space medicine specific methods to address this and trialed usage of these methods across seven published systematic reviews. This paper outlines evolution of space medicine synthesis methods and discussion of their initial application.METHODS: Space medicine systematic review guidance has been developed for protocol planning, quantitative and qualitative synthesis, sourcing gray data, and assessing quality and transferability of space medicine human spaceflight simulation study environments.RESULTS: Decision algorithms for guidance and tool usage were created based on usage. Six reviews used quantitative methods in which no meta-analyses were possible due to lack of controlled trials or reporting issues. All reviews scored the quality and transferability of space simulation environments. One review was qualitative. Several research gaps were identified.CONCLUSION: Successful use of the developed methods demonstrates usability and initial validity. The current space medicine evidence base resulting in no meta-analyses being possible shows the need for standardized guidance on how to synthesize data in this field. It also provides evidence to call for increasing use of controlled trials, standardizing outcome measures, and improving minimum reporting standards. Space medicine is a unique field of medical research that requires specific systematic review methods.Winnard A, Caplan N, Bruce-Martin C, Swain P, Velho R, Meroni R, Wotring V, Damann V, Weber T, Evetts S, Laws J. Developing, implementing, and applying novel techniques during systematic reviews of primary space medicine data. Aerosp Med Hum Perform. 2021; 92(8):681688.

Quantitative systematic review: Methods used for the in vivo measurement of body composition in pregnancy

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Guzman‐Ortiz ◽  
Nallely Bueno‐Hernandez ◽  
Guillermo Melendez‐Mier ◽  
Ernesto Roldan‐Valadez
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Body Composition ◽  
Systematic Review Methods ◽  
In Vivo Measurement ◽  
Quantitative Systematic Review ◽  
In Pregnancy

scholarly journals Application of US EPA IRIS systematic review methods to the health effects of phthalates: Lessons learned and path forward

2020 ◽  
Vol 145 ◽  
pp. 105820 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth G. Radke ◽  
Erin E. Yost ◽  
Nicolas Roth ◽  
Sheela Sathyanarayana ◽  
Paul Whaley
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Effects ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Systematic Review Methods ◽  
Us Epa

scholarly journals Should Lung-Sparing Surgery Be the Standard Procedure for Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma?

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (7) ◽  
pp. 2153
Author(s):  
Yoshinobu Ichiki ◽  
Hidenori Goto ◽  
Takashi Fukuyama ◽  
Kozo Nakanishi
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Standard Procedure ◽  
Extrapleural Pneumonectomy ◽  
Pleural Mesothelioma ◽  
Systematic Review Methods ◽  
Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Long Time ◽  
Related Mortality

Background: Surgical procedures for malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) include extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP), extended pleurectomy/decortication (P/D) and P/D. EPP has been applied to MPM for a long time, but the postoperative status is extremely poor due to the loss of one whole lung. We compared the mortality, morbidity and median survival time (MST) of lung-sparing surgery (extended P/D or P/D) and lung-sacrificing surgery (EPP) for MPM by performing a systematic review. Methods: We extracted the number of events and patients from the literature identified in electronic databases. Ultimately, 15 reports were selected, and 2674 MPM patients, including 1434 patients undergoing EPP and 1240 patients undergoing extended P/D or P/D, were analyzed. Results: Our systematic review showed that lung-sparing surgery was significantly superior to lung-sacrificing surgery in both the surgical-related mortality (extended P/D vs. EPP: 3.19% vs. 7.65%, p < 0.01; P/D vs. EPP: 1.85% vs. 7.34%, p < 0.01) and morbidity (extended P/D vs. EPP: 35.7% vs. 60.0%, p < 0.01; P/D vs. EPP: 9.52% vs. 20.89%, p < 0.01). Lung-sparing surgery was not inferior to EPP in terms of MST. Conclusion: Although no prospective randomized controlled trial has been conducted, it may be time to change the standard surgical method for MPM from lung-sacrificing surgery to lung-sparing surgery.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document