Learn More
BACKGROUND The Navigation Guide methodology was developed to meet the need for a robust method of systematic and transparent research synthesis in environmental health science. We conducted a case study systematic review to support proof of concept of the method. OBJECTIVE We applied the Navigation Guide systematic review methodology to determine whether(More)
BACKGROUND In contrast to current methods of expert-based narrative review, the Navigation Guide is a systematic and transparent method for synthesizing environmental health research from multiple evidence streams. The Navigation Guide was developed to effectively and efficiently translate the available scientific evidence into timely prevention-oriented(More)
BACKGROUND The Navigation Guide is a novel systematic review method to synthesize scientific evidence and reach strength of evidence conclusions for environmental health decision making. OBJECTIVE Our aim was to integrate scientific findings from human and nonhuman studies to determine the overall strength of evidence for the question "Does developmental(More)
BACKGROUND Exposure to ambient air pollution is widespread and may be detrimental to human brain development and a potential risk factor for Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). We conducted a systematic review of the human evidence on the relationship between ASD and exposure to all airborne pollutants, including particulate matter air pollutants and others(More)
Introduction Evidence-based decision making in environmental health requires synthesizing research from human and non human (i.e., animal) evidence to reach overall strength of evidence conclusions, and is an integral part of hazard identification and risk assessment [National Research Council (NRC) 2009]. However, numerous short comings of current methods(More)
We strongly support EHP's proposal encouraging authors who perform animal studies to adhere to the ARRIVE guidelines and Schroeder 2013), a 20‑item checklist for the reporting of key elements necessary to describe a study compre hensively and transparently (Kilkenny et al. 2010). In the clinical sphere, systematic review methods have been at the forefront(More)
  • 1