Comprehensive review reveals widespread reporting gaps across global air pollution assessments, highlighting the need for rigorous input validation and uncertainty analysis.
Objectives: We evaluated studies that used the World Health Organization's (WHO) AirQ and AirQ+ tools for air pollution (AP) health risk assessment (HRA) and provided best practice suggestions for future assessments. Methods: We performed a comprehensive review of studies using WHO's AirQ and AirQ+ tools, searching several databases for relevant articles, reports, and theses from inception to Dec 31, 2022. Results: We identified 286 studies that met our criteria. The studies were conducted in 69 countries, with most (57%) in Iran, followed by Italy and India (∼8% each). We found that many studies inadequately report air pollution exposure data, its quality, and validity. The decisions concerning the analysed population size, health outcomes of interest, baseline incidence, concentration-response functions, relative risk values, and counterfactual values are often not justified, sufficiently. Many studies lack an uncertainty assessment. Conclusion: Our review found a number of common shortcomings in the published assessments. We suggest better practices and urge future studies to focus on the quality of input data, its reporting, and associated uncertainties.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Amini et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: