Search

BACKGROUND: There is a long tradition in environmental health of using frameworks for evidence synthesis, such as those of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for its Integrated Science Assessments and the International Agency for Research on Cancer Monographs. The framework, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE), was developed for evidence synthesis in clinical medicine. The U.S. Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT) elaborated an approach for evidence synthesis in environmental health building on GRADE. METHODS: We applied a modified OHAT approach and a broader narrative assessment to assess the level of confidence in a large systematic review on traffic-related air pollution and health outcomes. DISCUSSION: We discuss several challenges with the OHAT approach and its implementation and suggest improvements for synthesizing evidence from observational studies in environmental health. We consider the determination of confidence using a formal rating scheme of up- and downgrading of certain factors, the treatment of every factor as equally important, and the lower initial confidence rating of observational studies to be fundamental issues in the OHAT approach. We argue that some observational studies can offer high-confidence evidence in environmental health. We note that heterogeneity in magnitude of effect estimates should generally not weaken the confidence in the evidence, and consistency of associations across study designs, populations, and exposure assessment methods may strengthen confidence in the evidence. We mention that publication bias should be explored beyond statistical methods and is likely limited when large and collaborative studies comprise most of the evidence and when accrued over several decades. We propose to identify possible key biases, their most likely direction, and their potential impacts on the results. We think that the OHAT approach and other GRADE-type frameworks require substantial modification to align better with features of environmental health questions and the studies that address them. We emphasize that a broader, narrative evidence assessment based on the systematic review may complement a formal GRADE-type evaluation. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP11532.

We appreciate the emphasis on the flexibility of the OHAT approach, including a narrative assessment. We respectfully disagree that we incorrectly portrayed the OHAT approach, and we clarify below with [...]

BACKGROUND: Although from a societal point of view a modal shift from car to bicycle may have beneficial health effects due to decreased air pollution emissions, decreased greenhouse gas emissions, [...]

We thank Int Panis for his thoughtful comments on our article (de Hartog et al. 2010), and we broadly agree with his comments. In fact, we discussed most of the [...]

Background: Although from a societal point of view a modal shift from car to bicycle may have beneficial health effects due to decreased air pollution emissions, decreased greenhouse gas emissions, and increased levels of physical activity, shifts in individual adverse health effects such as higher exposure to air pollution and risk of a traffic accident may prevail., Objective: We describe whether the health benefits from the increased physical activity of a modal shift for urban commutes outweigh the health risks., Data Sources and Extraction: We have summarized the literature for air pollution, traffic accidents, and physical activity using systematic reviews supplemented with recent key studies., Data Synthesis: We quantified the impact on all-cause mortality when 500,000 people would make a transition from car to bicycle for short trips on a daily basis in the Netherlands. We have expressed mortality impacts in life-years gained or lost, using life table calculations. For individuals who shift from car to bicycle, we estimated that beneficial effects of increased physical activity are substantially larger (3-14 months gained) than the potential mortality effect of increased inhaled air pollution doses (0.8-40 days lost) and the increase in traffic accidents (5-9 days lost). Societal benefits are even larger because of a modest reduction in air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions and traffic accidents., Conclusions: On average, the estimated health benefits of cycling were substantially larger than the risks relative to car driving for individuals shifting their mode of transport.