Dataset Information

Methodological limitations in studies assessing the effects of environmental and socioeconomic variables on the spread of COVID-19: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

While numerous studies have assessed the effects of environmental (meteorological variables and air pollutants) and socioeconomic variables on the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, many of them, however, have significant methodological limitations and errors that could call their results into question. Our main objective in this paper is to assess the methodological limitations in studies that evaluated the effects of environmental and socioeconomic variables on the spread of COVID-19.

Main body

We carried out a systematic review by conducting searches in the online databases PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus up to December 31, 2020. We first excluded those studies that did not deal with SAR-CoV-2 or COVID-19, preprints, comments, opinion or purely narrative papers, reviews and systematic literature reviews. Among the eligible full-text articles, we then excluded articles that were purely descriptive and those that did not include any type of regression model. We evaluated the risk of bias in six domains: confounding bias, control for population, control of spatial and/or temporal dependence, control of non-linearities, measurement errors and statistical model. Of the 5631 abstracts initially identified, we were left with 132 studies on which to carry out the qualitative synthesis. Of the 132 eligible studies, we evaluated 63.64% of the studies as high risk of bias, 19.70% as moderate risk of bias and 16.67% as low risk of bias.

Conclusions

All the studies we have reviewed, to a greater or lesser extent, have methodological limitations. These limitations prevent conclusions being drawn concerning the effects environmental (meteorological and air pollutants) and socioeconomic variables have had on COVID-19 outcomes. However, we dare to argue that the effects of these variables, if they exist, would be indirect, based on their relationship with social contact.

Supplementary information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12302-021-00550-7.

SUBMITTER: Barcelo MA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8432444 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHypersensitivity to electromagnetic fields (EMF) is a controversial condition. While individuals with idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (IEI-EMF) claim to experience health complaints upon EMF exposure, many experimental studies have found no convincing evidence for a physical relation. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate methodological limitations in experimental studies on symptom development in IEI-EMF individuals that might have fostered false positive or false negative results. Furthermore, we compared the profiles of these limitations between studies with positive and negative results.MethodsThe Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guided the methodological conduct and reporting. Eligible were blinded experimental studies that exposed individuals with IEI-EMF to different EMF exposure levels and queried the development of symptoms during or after each exposure trial. Strengths and limitations in design, conduct and analysis of individual studies were assessed using a customized rating tool.ResultsTwenty-eight studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in this review. In many studies, both with positive and negative results, we identified methodological limitations that might have either fostered false or masked real effects of exposure. The most common limitations were related to the selection of study participants, the counterbalancing of the exposure sequence and the effectiveness of blinding. Many studies further lacked statistical power estimates. Methodically sound studies indicated that an effect of exposure is unlikely.ConclusionOverall, the evidence points towards no effect of exposure. If physical effects exist, previous findings suggest that they must be very weak or affect only few individuals with IEI-EMF. Given the evidence that the nocebo effect or medical/mental disorders may explain the symptoms in many individuals with IEI-EMF, additional research is required to identify the various factors that may be important for developing IEI-EMF and for provoking the symptoms. We recommend the identification of subgroups and exploring IEI-EMF in the context of other idiopathic environmental intolerances. If further experimental studies are conducted, they should preferably be performed at the individual level. In particular, to increase the likelihood of detecting hypersensitive individuals, if they exist, we encourage researchers to achieve a high credibility of the results by minimizing sources of risk of bias and imprecision.

Project description:IntroductionSalivary bioscience has found increased utilization within pediatric research, given the non-invasive nature of self-collecting saliva for measuring biological markers. With this growth in pediatric utility, more understanding is needed of how social-contextual factors, such as socioeconomic factors or status (SES), influence salivary bioscience in large multi-site studies. Socioeconomic factors have been shown to influence non-salivary analyte levels across childhood and adolescent development. However, less is understood about relationships between these socioeconomic factors and salivary collection methodological variables (e.g., time of saliva collection from waking, time of day of saliva collection, physical activity prior to saliva collection, and caffeine intake prior to saliva collection). Variability in salivary methodological variables between participants may impact the levels of analytes measured in a salivary sample, thus serving as a potential mechanism for non-random systematic biases in analytes.MethodsOur objective is to examine relationships between socioeconomic factors and salivary bioscience methodological variables within the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study© cohort of children aged 9-10 years old (n = 10,567 participants with saliva samples).ResultsWe observed significant associations between household socioeconomic factors (poverty status, education) and salivary collection methodological variables (time since waking, time of day of sampling, physical activity, and caffeine intake). Moreover, lower levels of household poverty and education were significantly associated with more sources of potential bias in salivary collection methodological variables (e.g., longer times since waking, collections later in the day, higher odds of caffeine consumption, and lower odds of physical activity). Consistent associations were not observed with neighborhood socioeconomic factors and salivary methodological variables.DiscussionPrevious literature demonstrates associations between collection methodological variables and measurements of salivary analyte levels, particularly with analytes that are more sensitive to circadian rhythms, pH levels, or rigorous physical activity. Our novel findings suggest that unintended distortions in measured salivary analyte values, potentially resulting from the non-random systematic biases in salivary methodology, need to be intentionally incorporated into analyses and interpretation of results. This is particularly salient for future studies interested in examining underlying mechanisms of childhood socioeconomic health inequities in future analyses.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Measurement of self-efficacy requires carefully developed and validated instruments. It is currently unclear whether available self-efficacy instruments for chronic diseases fulfill these requirements. Our aim was to systematically identify all existing self-efficacy scales for five major chronic diseases and to assess their development and validation process. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search in electronic databases (MEDLINE, PSYCHINFO, and EMBASE) to identify studies describing the development and/or validation process of self-efficacy instruments for the five chronic diseases diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), asthma, arthritis, and heart failure. Two members of the review team independently selected articles meeting inclusion criteria. The self-efficacy instruments were evaluated in terms of their development (aim of instrument, a priori considerations, identification of items, selection of items, development of domains, answer options) and validation (test-retest reliability, internal consistency reliability, validity, responsiveness) process. RESULTS: Of 584 potentially eligible papers we included 25 (13 for diabetes, 5 for asthma, 4 for arthritis, 3 for COPD, 0 for heart failure) which covered 26 different self-efficacy instrument versions. For 8 instruments (30.8%), the authors described the aim before the scales were developed whereas for the other instruments the aim was unclear. In one study (3.8%) a priori considerations were specified. In none of the studies a systematic literature search was carried out to identify items. The item selection process was often not clearly described (38.5%). Test-retest reliability was assessed for 9 instruments (34.6%), validity using a correlational approach for 18 (69.2%), and responsiveness to change for 3 (11.5%) instruments. CONCLUSION: The development and validation process of the majority of the self-efficacy instruments had major limitations. The aim of the instruments was often not specified and for most instruments, not all measurement properties that are important to support the specific aim of the instrument (for example responsiveness for evaluative instruments) were assessed. Researchers who develop and validate self-efficacy instruments should adhere more closely to important methodological concepts for development and validation of patient-reported outcomes and report their methods more transparently. We propose a systematic five step approach for the development and validation of self-efficacy instruments.

Project description:BackgroundVerotoxigenic E. coli (VTEC) is the cause of severe gastrointestinal infection especially among infants. Between 10 and 20 cases are reported annually to the National Infectious Disease Register (NIDR) in Finland. The aim of this study was to identify explanatory variables for VTEC infections reported to the NIDR in Finland between 1997 and 2006. We applied a hurdle model, applicable for a dataset with an excess of zeros.MethodsWe enrolled 131 domestically acquired primary cases of VTEC between 1997 and 2006 from routine surveillance data. The isolated strains were characterized by virulence type, serogroup, phage type and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis. By applying a two-part Bayesian hurdle model to infectious disease surveillance data, we were able to create a model in which the covariates were associated with the probability for occurrence of the cases in the logistic regression part and the magnitude of covariate changes in the Poisson regression part if cases do occur. The model also included spatial correlations between neighbouring municipalities.ResultsThe average annual incidence rate was 4.8 cases per million inhabitants based on the cases as reported to the NIDR. Of the 131 cases, 74 VTEC O157 and 58 non-O157 strains were isolated (one person had dual infections). The number of bulls per human population and the proportion of the population with a higher education were associated with an increased occurrence and incidence of human VTEC infections in 70 (17%) of 416 of Finnish municipalities. In addition, the proportion of fresh water per area, the proportion of cultivated land per area and the proportion of low income households with children were associated with increased incidence of VTEC infections.ConclusionsWith hurdle models we were able to distinguish between risk factors for the occurrence of the disease and the incidence of the disease for data characterised by an excess of zeros. The density of bulls and the proportion of the population with higher education were significant both for occurrence and incidence, while the proportion of fresh water, cultivated land, and the proportion of low income households with children were significant for the incidence of the disease.

Project description:BackgroundIncreasingly, researchers need to demonstrate the impact of their research to their sponsors, funders, and fellow academics. However, the most appropriate way of measuring the impact of healthcare research is subject to debate. We aimed to identify the existing methodological frameworks used to measure healthcare research impact and to summarise the common themes and metrics in an impact matrix.Methods and findingsTwo independent investigators systematically searched the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), the Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL+), the Health Management Information Consortium, and the Journal of Research Evaluation from inception until May 2017 for publications that presented a methodological framework for research impact. We then summarised the common concepts and themes across methodological frameworks and identified the metrics used to evaluate differing forms of impact. Twenty-four unique methodological frameworks were identified, addressing 5 broad categories of impact: (1) 'primary research-related impact', (2) 'influence on policy making', (3) 'health and health systems impact', (4) 'health-related and societal impact', and (5) 'broader economic impact'. These categories were subdivided into 16 common impact subgroups. Authors of the included publications proposed 80 different metrics aimed at measuring impact in these areas. The main limitation of the study was the potential exclusion of relevant articles, as a consequence of the poor indexing of the databases searched.ConclusionsThe measurement of research impact is an essential exercise to help direct the allocation of limited research resources, to maximise research benefit, and to help minimise research waste. This review provides a collective summary of existing methodological frameworks for research impact, which funders may use to inform the measurement of research impact and researchers may use to inform study design decisions aimed at maximising the short-, medium-, and long-term impact of their research.