Systematic Review Checklist: A Standardized Technique for Assessing and Reporting Reviews of Life Cycle Assessment Data.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Zumsteg JM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4461004 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Apr
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Systematic Review Checklist: A Standardized Technique for Assessing and Reporting Reviews of Life Cycle Assessment Data.
Zumsteg Jennifer M JM Cooper Joyce S JS Noon Michael S MS
Journal of industrial ecology 20120401 Suppl 1
Systematic review, including meta-analysis, is increasingly utilized in life cycle assessment (LCA). There are currently no widely recognized guidelines for designing, conducting, or reporting systematic reviews in LCA. Other disciplines such as medicine, ecology, and software engineering have both recognized the utility of systematic reviews and created standardized protocols for conducting and reporting systematic reviews. Based largely on the 2009 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic revi ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Environmental data on organic products are needed to assess their environmental performance. The purpose of the ACV Bio project reported here was to generate environmental data as life cycle assessment (LCA) data for a sample of French organic production systems including cropping systems (annual crops, intercrops, forages), grassland, wine grapes, cow milk, calves, beef cattle, sheep, pigs, broilers and eggs. LCA was used to estimate environmental impacts of products from these systems. Recommended uses are to characterize part of the diversity of French organic farming systems and some of their environmental impacts, identify areas for improvement, perform eco-design and sensitivity analysis, and/or make system choices in a given context. However, these data do not represent average French organic products and should not be used as such. The MEANS-InOut web application was used to generate life cycle inventories (LCI). Impact assessment was performed using SimaPro v9 software. The Environmental Footprint 2.0 characterisation method was used to generate LCA data. These data were supplemented with three LCA indicators: cumulative energy demand, land competition (CML-IA non-baseline) and biodiversity loss. Three non-LCA indicators were also calculated for certain systems: diversity of crop families (for cropping systems), agro-ecological infrastructure (for sheep) and pesticide treatment frequency index (for grapes). In total, 173 products were modelled. LCA and non-LCA data are available in the Microsoft® Excel file at Data INRAE (https://doi.org/10.15454/TTR25S). LCI data are available in the AGRIBALYSE database and can be accessed using SimaPro and openLCA software. Farmer-practice data are available on demand.
| S-EPMC8446808 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Acupuncture is widely used worldwide, and systematic reviews on acupuncture are increasingly being published. Although acupuncture systematic reviews share several essential elements with other systematic reviews, some essential information for the application of acupuncture is not covered by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Considering this, we aimed to develop an extension of the PRISMA statement for acupuncture systematic reviews. METHODS:We used the PRISMA statement as a starting point, and conducted this study referring to the development strategy recommended by the EQUATOR network. The initial items were collected through a wide survey among evidence users and a review of relevant studies. We conducted a three-round Delphi survey and one-day face-to-face meeting to select items and formulate the checklist. After the consensus meeting, we drafted the manuscript (including the checklist) and sent it to our advisory experts for comments, following which the checklist was refined and circulated to a group of acupuncture systematic review authors for pilot test. We also selected a sample of acupuncture systematic reviews published in 2017 to test the checklist. RESULTS:A checklist of five new sub-items (including sub items) and six modified items was formulated, involving content related to title, rationale, eligibility criteria, literature search, data extraction, and study characteristics. We clarified the rationales of the items and provided examples for each item for additional guidance. CONCLUSION:The PRISMA for Acupuncture checklist is developed for improving the reporting of systematic reviews of acupuncture interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION:We have registered the study on the EQUATOR network ( http://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/#91 ).
| S-EPMC6689876 | biostudies-other
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To assess the adequacy of reporting and conduct of narrative synthesis of quantitative data (NS) in reviews evaluating the effectiveness of public health interventions. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING:A retrospective comparison of a 20% (n = 474/2,372) random sample of public health systematic reviews from the McMaster Health Evidence database (January 2010-October 2015) to establish the proportion of reviews using NS. From those reviews using NS, 30% (n = 75/251) were randomly selected and data were extracted for detailed assessment of: reporting NS methods, management and investigation of heterogeneity, transparency of data presentation, and assessment of robustness of the synthesis. RESULTS:Most reviews used NS (56%, n = 251/446); meta-analysis was the primary method of synthesis for 44%. In the detailed assessment of NS, 95% (n = 71/75) did not describe NS methods; 43% (n = 32) did not provide transparent links between the synthesis data and the synthesis reported in the text; of 14 reviews that identified heterogeneity in direction of effect, only one investigated the heterogeneity; and 36% (n = 27) did not reflect on limitations of the synthesis. CONCLUSION:NS methods are rarely reported in systematic reviews of public health interventions and many NS reviews lack transparency in how the data are presented and the conclusions are reached. This threatens the validity of much of the evidence synthesis used to support public health. Improved guidance on reporting and conduct of NS will contribute to improved utility of NS systematic reviews.
| S-EPMC6327109 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Benchmarking the environmental sustainability of alcohol produced from legume starch against alcohol produced from cereal grains requires considering of crop production, nutrient cycling and use of protein-rich co-products via life cycle assessment. This article describes the mass balance flows behind the life cycle inventories for gin produced from wheat and peas (Pisum sativum L.) in an associated article summarising the environmental footprints of wheat- and pea-gin [1], and also presents detailed supplementary results. Activity data were collected from interviews with actors along the entire gin value chain including a distillery manager and ingredient and packaging suppliers. Important fertiliser and animal-feed substitution effects of co-product use were derived using detailed information and models on nutrient flows and animal feed composition, along with linear optimisation modelling. Secondary data on environmental burdens of specific materials and processes were obtained from the Ecoinvent v3.4 life cycle assessment database. This article provides a basis for further quantitative evaluation of the environmental sustainability of legume-alcohol value chains.
| S-EPMC6715788 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:A recent study by Page et al. (PLoS Med. 2016;13(5):e1002028) claimed that increasing numbers of reviews are being published and many are poorly-conducted and reported. The aim of the present study was to assess how well reporting standards of systematic reviews produced in a Health Technology Assessment (HTA) context compare with reporting in Cochrane and other 'non-Cochrane' systematic reviews from the same years (2004 and 2014), as reported by Page et al. (PLoS Med. 2016;13(5):e1002028). METHODS:All relevant UK HTA programme systematic reviews published in 2004 and 2014 were identified. After piloting of the form, two reviewers each extracted relevant data on conduct and reporting from these reviews. These data were compared with data for Cochrane and "non-Cochrane" systematic reviews, as published by Page et al. (PLoS Med. 2016;13(5):e1002028). All data were tabulated and summarized. RESULTS:There were 30 UK HTA programme systematic reviews and 300 other systematic reviews, including Cochrane reviews (n?=?45). The percentage of HTA reviews with required elements of conduct and reporting was frequently very similar to Cochrane and much higher than all other systematic reviews, e.g. availability of protocols (90, 98 and 16% respectively); the specification of study design criteria (100, 100, 79%); the reporting of outcomes (100, 100, 78%), quality assessment (100, 100, 70%); the searching of trial registries for unpublished data (70, 62, 19%); reporting of reasons for excluding studies (91, 91 and 70%) and reporting of authors' conflicts of interests (100, 100, 87%). HTA reviews only compared less favourably with Cochrane and other reviews in assessments of publication bias. CONCLUSIONS:UK HTA systematic reviews are often produced within a specific policy-making context. This context has implications for timelines, tools and resources. However, UK HTA systematic reviews still tend to present standards of conduct and reporting equivalent to "gold standard" Cochrane reviews and superior to systematic reviews more generally.
| S-EPMC5941703 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:The methodological quality and completeness of reporting of the systematic reviews (SRs) is fundamental to optimal implementation of evidence-based health care and the reduction of research waste. Methods exist to appraise SRs yet little is known about how they are used in SRs or where there are potential gaps in research best-practice guidance materials. The aims of this study are to identify reports assessing the methodological quality (MQ) and/or reporting quality (RQ) of a cohort of SRs and to assess their number, general characteristics, and approaches to 'quality' assessment over time. METHODS:The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE®, and EMBASE® were searched from January 1990 to October 16, 2014, for reports assessing MQ and/or RQ of SRs. Title, abstract, and full-text screening of all reports were conducted independently by two reviewers. Reports assessing the MQ and/or RQ of a cohort of ten or more SRs of interventions were included. All results are reported as frequencies and percentages of reports. RESULTS:Of 20,765 unique records retrieved, 1189 of them were reviewed for full-text review, of which 76 reports were included. Eight previously published approaches to assessing MQ or reporting guidelines used as proxy to assess RQ were used in 80% (61/76) of identified reports. These included two reporting guidelines (PRISMA and QUOROM) and five quality assessment tools (AMSTAR, R-AMSTAR, OQAQ, Mulrow, Sacks) and GRADE criteria. The remaining 24% (18/76) of reports developed their own criteria. PRISMA, OQAQ, and AMSTAR were the most commonly used published tools to assess MQ or RQ. In conjunction with other approaches, published tools were used in 29% (22/76) of reports, with 36% (8/22) assessing adherence to both PRISMA and AMSTAR criteria and 26% (6/22) using QUOROM and OQAQ. CONCLUSIONS:The methods used to assess quality of SRs are diverse, and none has become universally accepted. The most commonly used quality assessment tools are AMSTAR, OQAQ, and PRISMA. As new tools and guidelines are developed to improve both the MQ and RQ of SRs, authors of methodological studies are encouraged to put thoughtful consideration into the use of appropriate tools to assess quality and reporting.
| S-EPMC5477124 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveData quality (DQ) must be consistently defined in context. The attributes, metadata, and context of longitudinal real-world data (RWD) have not been formalized for quality improvement across the data production and curation life cycle. We sought to complete a literature review on DQ assessment frameworks, indicators and tools for research, public health, service, and quality improvement across the data life cycle.Materials and methodsThe review followed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Databases from health, physical and social sciences were used: Cinahl, Embase, Scopus, ProQuest, Emcare, PsycINFO, Compendex, and Inspec. Embase was used instead of PubMed (an interface to search MEDLINE) because it includes all MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms used and journals in MEDLINE as well as additional unique journals and conference abstracts. A combined data life cycle and quality framework guided the search of published and gray literature for DQ frameworks, indicators, and tools. At least 2 authors independently identified articles for inclusion and extracted and categorized DQ concepts and constructs. All authors discussed findings iteratively until consensus was reached.ResultsThe 120 included articles yielded concepts related to contextual (data source, custodian, and user) and technical (interoperability) factors across the data life cycle. Contextual DQ subcategories included relevance, usability, accessibility, timeliness, and trust. Well-tested computable DQ indicators and assessment tools were also found.ConclusionsA DQ assessment framework that covers intrinsic, technical, and contextual categories across the data life cycle enables assessment and management of RWD repositories to ensure fitness for purpose. Balancing security, privacy, and FAIR principles requires trust and reciprocity, transparent governance, and organizational cultures that value good documentation.
| S-EPMC8475229 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Life cycle assessment (LCA) has been used to evaluate environmental impacts of products or processes including wastewater treatment. Uncertainty has not received adequate attention in LCA studies. Uncertainty inherited in LCA steps such as the life cycle inventory (LCI) or the life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) method use is unavoidable, but it affects LCA outcomes and associated decision-making. The objective of this paper was to show the impact of uncertainty from LCI and LCIA method on LCA outcomes by using a case study base approach on wastewater sludge treatment processes. A qualitative analysis included setting criteria about what data to be included in LCI, characterization of data, differentiating between major and minor contributors in LCI modeling, evaluation of data quality indicators, setting achievable alternative scenarios, and selecting proper LCIA method were used, in addition to quantitative analysis included assigning most appropriate values for data gaps and proper distribution, and conducting probabilistic analysis to evaluate overall uncertainty. This research used a full-scale wastewater treatment plant in Missouri, USA for case study in which multiple hearth incineration (MHI) is the existing process, while fluid bed incineration (FBI) and anaerobic digestion (AD) were proposed as the alternatives. Using ReCipe method, the study revealed that variation in LCA results of MHI is 63.4% for a single end-point score of 57.9 mPt. On the two alternative processes, it is 54.6% probable that FBI would have more environmental impact than AD. The case study showed that the proposed steps were able to address issues of data uncertainty. Due to differences in characterization, normalization, and weighting factors, different LCIA methods may point out different conclusions and need to be addressed in evaluation.
| S-EPMC6895703 | biostudies-literature
Project description:"Node-RADS" addresses the lack of consensus in the radiologic assessment of lymph node involvement by cancer and meets the increasing demand for structured reporting on the likelihood of disease involvement. Node Reporting and Data System 1.0 (Node-RADS) systematically classifies the degree of suspicion of lymph node involvement based on the synthesis of established imaging findings. Straightforward definitions of imaging findings for two proposed scoring categories "size" and "configuration" are combined into assessment categories between 1 ("very low likelihood") and 5 ("very high likelihood"). This scoring system is suitable for assessing likely involvement of lymph nodes on CT and MRI scans. It can be applied at any anatomical site, and to regional and non-regional lymph nodes in relation to a primary tumor location. Node-RADS will improve communication with referring physicians and promote the consistency of reporting for primary staging and in response assessment settings. KEY POINTS: • Node-RADS standardizes reporting of possible cancer involvement of regional and distant lymph nodes on CT and MRI. • Node-RADS proposes the scoring categories "size" and "configuration" for assigning the 5-point Node-RADS score from 1 ("very low likelihood") to 5 ("very high likelihood"). • Node-RADS aims to increase consensus among radiologists for primary staging and in response assessment settings.
| S-EPMC8270876 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeDespite growing access to data, questions of "best fit" data and the appropriate use of results in supporting decision making still plague the life cycle assessment (LCA) community. This discussion paper addresses revisions to assessing data quality captured in a new US Environmental Protection Agency guidance document as well as additional recommendations on data quality creation, management, and use in LCA databases and studies.ApproachExisting data quality systems and approaches in LCA were reviewed and tested. The evaluations resulted in a revision to a commonly used pedigree matrix, for which flow and process level data quality indicators are described, more clarity for scoring criteria, and further guidance on interpretation are given.DiscussionIncreased training for practitioners on data quality application and its limits are recommended. A multi-faceted approach to data quality assessment utilizing the pedigree method alongside uncertainty analysis in result interpretation is recommended. A method of data quality score aggregation is proposed and recommendations for usage of data quality scores in existing data are made to enable improved use of data quality scores in LCA results interpretation. Roles for data generators, data repositories, and data users are described in LCA data quality management. Guidance is provided on using data with data quality scores from other systems alongside data with scores from the new system. The new pedigree matrix and recommended data quality aggregation procedure can now be implemented in openLCA software.Future workAdditional ways in which data quality assessment might be improved and expanded are described. Interoperability efforts in LCA data should focus on descriptors to enable user scoring of data quality rather than translation of existing scores. Developing and using data quality indicators for additional dimensions of LCA data, and automation of data quality scoring through metadata extraction and comparison to goal and scope are needed.
| S-EPMC5919259 | biostudies-literature