Establishing a health-based recommended occupational exposure limit for nitrous oxide using experimental animal data – A systematic review protocol

Luijk, Judith A.K.R. van; Popa, Mădălina; Swinkels, Janne; Menon, Julia M. L.; Alkema, Wynand; Roeleveld, Nel; Hoffmann, Sebastian; Schlünssen, Vivi; Mandrioli, Daniele; Ritskes‐Hoitinga, Merel; Scheepers, Paul T.J.

doi:10.1016/j.envres.2019.108711

“…Nonetheless, some important general milestones relating to themes discussed at the workshop have since been reached. More than one environmental health journal is now accepting protocol publications (Sgargi et al, 2020;Romeo et al, 2021;van Luijk et al, 2019), and at least three journals are putting in place specialist systematic review editors (DW, personal communication). The first set of formal recommendations for conduct of environmental health systematic reviews, "COSTER", has been published (Whaley et al, 2020a), and an online tool 3 for facilitating consistent editorial triage against a basic set of expectations for systematic reviews has been created, "CREST_Triage" (Whaley and Isalski, 2020).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving the quality of toxicology and environmental health systematic reviews: What journal editors can do

Whaley

¹

,

Blaauboer

²

,

Brožek

³

et al. 2021

ALTEX

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Systematic reviews are fast increasing in prevalence in the toxicology and environmental health literature. However, how well these complex research projects are being conducted and reported is unclear. Since editors have an essential role in ensuring the scientific quality of manuscripts being published in their journals, a workshop was convened where editors, systematic review practitioners, and research quality control experts could discuss what editors can do to ensure the systematic reviews they publish are of sufficient scientific quality. Interventions were explored along four themes: setting standards; reviewing protocols; optimizing editorial workflows; and measuring the effectiveness of editorial interventions. In total, 58 editorial interventions were proposed. Of these, 26 were shortlisted for being potentially effective, and 5 were prioritized as short-term actions that editors could relatively easily take to improve the quality of published systematic reviews. Recent progress in improving systematic reviews is summarized, and outstanding challenges to further progress are highlighted.Editors of scientific journals have a fundamental role in ensuring that the published scholarly literature is of sufficient scientific quality that it is useful and can be replicated. They are involved in setting quality standards that submitted

show abstract

“…Nonetheless, some important general milestones relating to themes discussed at the workshop have since been reached. More than one environmental health journal is now accepting protocol publications (Sgargi et al, 2020;Romeo et al, 2021;van Luijk et al, 2019), and at least three journals are putting in place specialist pert participants, to have a significant, near-term impact on the quality of systematic reviews being published in environmental health and toxicology. A further nine interventions were recognized as being of strategic value but more challenging to implement.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving the quality of toxicology and environmental health systematic reviews: What journal editors can do_suppl

Whaley

¹

2021

ALTEX

0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Systematic reviews are fast increasing in prevalence in the toxicology and environmental health literature. However, how well these complex research projects are being conducted and reported is unclear. Since editors have an essential role in ensuring the scientific quality of manuscripts being published in their journals, a workshop was convened where editors, systematic review practitioners, and research quality control experts could discuss what editors can do to ensure the systematic reviews they publish are of sufficient scientific quality. Interventions were explored along four themes: setting standards; reviewing protocols; optimizing editorial workflows; and measuring the effectiveness of editorial interventions. In total, 58 editorial interventions were proposed. Of these, 26 were shortlisted for being potentially effective, and 5 were prioritized as short-term actions that editors could relatively easily take to improve the quality of published systematic reviews. Recent progress in improving systematic reviews is summarized, and outstanding challenges to further progress are highlighted.

show abstract

“…Publication of a protocol in a scientific journal has the added advantage of external peer review before starting the review efforts, which is expected to increase the quality of the work. Examples are Leenaars et al, 22 Matta et al, 23 Pires et al 24 and van Luijk et al 25 Developing a search and searching the literature…”

Section: Writing a Protocolmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reviewing the animal literature: how to describe and choose between different types of literature reviews

Leenaars

¹

,

Tsaioun

²

,

Stafleu

³

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Before starting any (animal) research project, review of the existing literature is good practice. From both the scientific and the ethical perspective, high-quality literature reviews are essential. Literature reviews have many potential advantages besides synthesising the evidence for a research question. First, they can show if a proposed study has already been performed, preventing redundant research. Second, when planning new experiments, reviews can inform the experimental design, thereby increasing the reliability, relevance and efficiency of the study. Third, reviews may even answer research questions using already available data. Multiple definitions of the term literature review co-exist. In this paper, we describe the different steps in the review process, and the risks and benefits of using various methodologies in each step. We then suggest common terminology for different review types: narrative reviews, mapping reviews, scoping reviews, rapid reviews, systematic reviews and umbrella reviews. We recommend which review to select, depending on the research question and available resources. We believe that improved understanding of review methods and terminology will prevent ambiguity and increase appropriate interpretation of the conclusions of reviews.

show abstract

Establishing a health-based recommended occupational exposure limit for nitrous oxide using experimental animal data – A systematic review protocol

Cited by 6 publications

References 22 publications

Improving the quality of toxicology and environmental health systematic reviews: What journal editors can do

Improving the quality of toxicology and environmental health systematic reviews: What journal editors can do

Improving the quality of toxicology and environmental health systematic reviews: What journal editors can do_suppl

Reviewing the animal literature: how to describe and choose between different types of literature reviews

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About