A comparison of the systematic reviews and meta-analyses conducted to explore the effect of air pollution exposure during pregnancy and the risk of preterm birth
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background and aims There has been a rapid rise in systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SR/MAs) conducted on the association between air pollution exposure during pregnancy and the risk of preterm birth in recent years. Few studies have examined differences in their quality and if they have provided additional insight into the field. This study analysed previous SR/MAs to explore their practices and identify gaps and opportunities for the research field. This work was done to determine if an upcoming SR/MA was needed. Methods A literature search using major English and Chinese databases was performed to find SR/MAs published from 2010 onwards. Information regarding publication date, methods of quality assessment, consideration of population overlap, and primary studies included in their analysis were extracted and compared. Results Seventeen SR/MAs, which included thirteen MAs were conducted from 2010 onwards. A large variety of quality assessment tools were used, but the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was the most common (n=6). Seven MAs explicitly mentioned that they took population overlap into account. Four SR/MAs were found in 2021 alone, but three did not examine the whole literature and focused on specific study designs or exposure assessment methods. They were thus unable to build on finding of previous work due to exclusion of studies that were included in other SR/MAs. Conclusions A considerable number of SR/MAs provided limited addition to the field as they were conducted without sufficient rigour. This may hinder coming to a consensus on the effect estimate of interest and overlook field-specific biases. Therefore, a new SR/MA with improvements in transparency in reporting, replicability of findings, and quality assessment of studies is required. The protocol of this SR/MA is now registered on PROSPERO and will begin in due course. Keywords Maternal exposure; preterm birth; meta-analysis; birth outcomes, air pollution; pregnancy
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».