EviAtlas: a tool for visualising evidence synthesis databases

Haddaway, Neal R.; Feierman, Andrew; Grainger, Matthew; Gray, Charles T.; Tanriver-Ayder, Ezgi; Dhaubanjar, Sanita; Westgate, Martin J.

doi:10.31219/osf.io/jwr87

Cited by 14 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As well as the narrative synthesis of the systematic maps, data collected from the eligible studies will be recorded in an Excel spreadsheet and made available as an additional file. Both maps will be presented using the EviAtlas tool and will be uploaded online [45]. We plan to display: the location of the studies; heatmaps showing different exposure sources or routes by different outcome measures and details of the impact to relevant populations.…”

Section: Study Mapping and Presentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

What is the research evidence for antibiotic resistance exposure and transmission to humans from the environment? A systematic map protocol

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a public health crisis that is predicted to cause 10 million deaths per year by 2050. The environment has been implicated as a reservoir of AMR and is suggested to play a role in the dissemination of antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs). Currently, most research has focused on measuring concentrations of antibiotics and characterising the abundance and diversity of ARGs and antibiotic resistant bacteria (ARB) in the environment. To date, there has been limited empirical research on whether humans are exposed to this, and whether exposure can lead to measureable impacts on human health. Therefore, the objective of this work is to produce two linked systematic maps to investigate previous research on exposure and transmission of AMR to humans from the environment. The first map will investigate the available research relating to exposure and transmission of ARB/ARGs from the environment to humans on a global scale and the second will investigate the prevalence of ARB/ARGs in various environments in the UK. These two maps will be useful for policy makers and research funders to identify where there are significant gluts and gaps in the current research, and where more primary and synthesis research needs to be undertaken. Methods: Separate search strategies will be developed for the two maps. Searches will be run in 13 databases, and grey literature will be sought from key websites and engagement with experts. Hits will be managed in EndNote and screened in two stages (title/abstract then full text) against predefined inclusion criteria. A minimum of 10% will be double screened with ongoing consistency checking. All included studies will have data extracted into a bespoke form designed and piloted for each map. Data to be extracted will include bibliographic details, study design, location, exposure source, exposure route, health outcome (Map 1); and prevalence/percentage of ARB/ARG (Map 2). No validity appraisal will be undertaken. Results will be tabulated and presented narratively, together with graphics showing the types and areas of research that has been undertaken and heatmaps for key exposure-health outcomes (Map 1) and exposure-prevalence (Map 2).

show abstract

Section: Study Mapping and Presentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

What is the research evidence for antibiotic resistance exposure and transmission to humans from the environment? A systematic map protocol

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We have created an evidence atlas using the EviAtlas tool [28] and it is accessible at https ://www.bonus retur n.eu/ progr am/evide nce-base-for-ecote chnol ogies -in-waste water -treat ment/. The evidence atlas shows the locations from the studies included in the systematic map database on a cartographic map.…”

Section: Evidence Atlasmentioning

confidence: 99%

What evidence exists on ecotechnologies for recycling carbon and nutrients from domestic wastewater? A systematic map

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Eutrophication of the Baltic Sea, and many other water bodies, is partly the result of point-source emissions of nutrients and carbon from wastewater. At the same time, nitrogen and phosphorus planetary boundaries have been breached. There is a need for more efficient resource management, including the recovery and reuse of nutrients and carbon in waste. The aim of this paper is to collate evidence on ecotechnologies intended for use in the wastewater sector globally to facilitate the recovery or reuse of carbon and/or nutrients. Methods Searches were performed on literature published between 2013 and 2017 and in 5 bibliographic databases, 1 search engine, and 38 specialist websites. Database searches were performed in English. Searches in specialist websites were also performed in Finnish, Polish and Swedish. There was no geographical limitation. Screening was conducted at title and abstract level, and on full texts. Apart from bibliographical information, we extracted information on ecotechnology type, intervention, details of the recovery or reuse, the type of wastewater stream to which the ecotechnology is applied, the study location, type and design. Prior to screening and coding, we conducted consistency checks amongst reviewers. We generated a searchable database of coded studies. Findings were synthesised narratively and visualised in a geographical information system (i.e. an evidence atlas). We identified a series of knowledge gaps and clusters that warrant further research. Results The search resulted in 4024 records, out of which 413 articles were retained after the screening process. In addition, 35 pre-screened studies from the specialist website searches were added. Together, these 448 articles contained 474 individual studies of 28 types of ecotechnologies. A combination of ecotechnologies (16.7%), followed by microalgae cultivation (14.1%) were the most frequent ecotechnologies in the evidence base. Ecotechnologies for recovery composed 72.6% of the evidence base. The most common wastewater streams for recovery were mixed wastewater and sludge (73.8%). There was a relative lack of studies on recovery from source-separated wastewater. The most common type of recovery was energy (27.3%), followed by simultaneous recovery of nitrogen and phosphorus (22.1%). Reuse of recovered substances was described in 22.8% of the studies. The most common type of reuse was of nitrogen and phosphorus (57.4%), followed by joint reuse of organic carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus (35.2%). Reuse ecotechnologies were mostly focused on the use of wastewater for irrigation or reuse of biosolids, and not on the nutrients that had been extracted through e.g. precipitation of struvite. In 22 studies both recovery and reuse were described. In total, 60 different study countries were reported in the evidence base, and the most common study location was China. Conclusions We found substantial evidence for the recovery and reuse of nutrients and carbon from wastewater sources. The relative abundance of studies where substances are recovered compared to studies where they are reused, suggests a knowledge gap on reuse of recovered nutrients and carbon. The majority of studies on reuse were on irrigation with treated wastewater or reuse of biosolids, and not on reuse of extracted nutrients such as struvite.

show abstract

“…Freely useable and adaptable tools for analysis and visualization have been made available online to support the conduct and communication of COVID-19 relevant research, for example, corona-cli (code for analyzing and visualizing data on the outbreak); the EviAtlas tool for mapping the geographical spread of evidence on COVID-19 [22].…”

Section: Open Sourcementioning

confidence: 99%