BackgroundAn increasing number of systematic reviews (SRs) in the environmental field have been published in recent years as a result of the global concern about the health impacts of air pollution and temperature. However, no study has assessed and compared the methodological and reporting quality of SRs on the health effects of air pollutants and extreme temperatures. This study aims to assess and compare the methodological and reporting quality of SRs on the health effects of ambient air pollutants and extreme temperatures.MethodsPubMed, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Epistemonikos databases were searched. Two researchers screened the literature and extracted information independently. The methodological quality of the SRs was assessed through A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2). The reporting quality was assessed through Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).ResultsWe identified 405 SRs (286 for air pollution, 108 for temperature, and 11 for the synergistic effects). The methodological and reporting quality of the included SRs were suboptimal, with major deficiencies in protocol registration. The methodological quality of SRs of air pollutants was better than that of temperature, especially in terms of satisfactory explanations for any heterogeneity (69.6% v. 45.4%). The reporting quality of SRs of air pollution was better than temperature, however, adherence to the reporting of the assessment results of risk of bias in all SRs (53.5% v. 34.3%) was inadequate.ConclusionsMethodological and reporting quality of SRs on the health effect of air pollutants were higher than those of temperatures. However, deficiencies in protocol registration and the assessment of risk of bias remain an issue for both pollutants and temperatures. In addition, developing a risk-of-bias assessment tool applicable to the temperature field may improve the quality of SRs.

Objectives: (i) To analyze trends and gaps in evidence of health effects on pollutants and extreme temperatures by evidence mapping; (ii) to conduct a cross-sectional survey on the use of the Grades of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) in systematic reviews or meta-analyses (SR/MAs) of health effects on pollutants and extreme temperatures. Study Design and Setting: PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) were searched until July 7, 2022. SR/MAs investigated health effects of pollutants and extreme temperatures were included.Results: Out of 22,658 studies, 312 SR/MAs were included in evidence mapping, and the effects of pollutants on cancer and congenital malformations were new research hotspots. Among 16 SR/MAs involving 108 outcomes that were rated using GRADE, the certainty of evidence was mostly downgraded for inconsistency (50, 42.7%), imprecision (33, 28.2%), and risk of bias (24, 20.5%). In contrast, concentration-response gradient (26, 65.0%) was the main upgrade factor.Conclusion: GRADE is not widely used in SR/MAs of health effects on pollutants and extreme temperatures. The certainty of evidence is generally low, mainly because of the serious inconsistency or imprecision. Use of the GRADE in SR/MAs of health effects on pollutants and extreme temperatures should strengthen.& COPY; 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Research indicates that air pollution is a risk factor of an increased occurrence of diseases. However, evidence is limited on the effects of the pollution index on disease and whether temperature modifies the effects. The objectives were (i) to explore the effects of the Air Pollution Index (API) and specific indices for pollutants (PM10, NO2, and SO2) on respiratory emergency department (ED) visits in Beijing and (ii) to investigate whether temperature modified the effects of main air pollutants on respiratory ED visits. A quasi-Poisson generalized additive model was employed to examine the association of API and indices for pollutants with respiratory disease. Bivariate response surface model and stratification model (cold days, moderately cold days, moderately hot days, and hot days) were used to analyze the modification effects of temperature on air pollution and respiratory disease. The results showed that (i) the effects of API on respiratory diseases were similar to the index for PM(10)in Beijing. (ii) API and PM(10)were associated with increased respiratory ED visits on cold days and moderately cold days. Furthermore, the effects of PM(10)on respiratory disease on moderately cold days [Relative risk (RR) = 1.006 per 10 mu g/m(3), 95% CI 1.002-1.009] were stronger than on cold days (RR = 1.004 per 10 mu g/m(3), 95% CI 1.000-1.008). (iii) PM10(API) had a greater impact on children aged 10 to 17 years and females on moderately cold days, while the elderly had an increased risk of respiratory disease to PM10(RR = 1.008 per 10 mu g/m(3), 95% CI 1.002-1.013) and API (RR = 1.013 per 10, 95% CI 1.004-1.022) on cold days. In conclusion, temperature can modify the association between API and respiratory morbidity. A stronger correlation existed between PM(10)and respiratory diseases on moderately cold days, while the effects of cold days were less than that attributable to moderately cold days.

BACKGROUND: Household air pollution (HAP) resulting from the use of solid fuels presents a major public health hazard. Improved stoves have been offered as a potential tool to reduce exposure to HAP and improve health outcomes. Systematic information on stove interventions is limited. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the current evidence of improved stove interventions aimed at reducing HAP in real life settings. An extensive search of ten databases commenced in April 2014. In addition, we searched clinical trial registers and websites for unpublished studies and grey literature. Studies were included if they reported on an improved stove intervention aimed at reducing HAP resulting from solid fuel use in a low or middle-income country. RESULTS: The review identified 5,243 records. Of these, 258 abstracts and 57 full texts were reviewed and 36 studies identified which met the inclusion criteria. When well-designed, implemented and monitored, stove interventions can have positive effects. However, the impacts are unlikely to reduce pollutant levels to World Health Organization recommended levels. Additionally, many participants in the included studies continued to use traditional stoves either instead of, or in additional to, new improved options. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence suggests improved stove interventions can reduce exposure to HAP resulting from solid fuel smoke. Studies with longer follow-up periods are required to assess if pollutant reductions reported in the current literature are sustained over time. Adoption of new technologies is challenging and interventions must be tailored to the needs and preferences of the households of interest. Future studies require greater process evaluation to improve knowledge of implementation barriers and facilitators. REVIEW REGISTRATION: The review was registered on Prospero (registration number CRD42014009796 )