Burden of disease assessments for air pollution and noise: a scoping review of methodological choices and input data

Aim This study aims to assess the variation in methodological choices and input data in burden of disease (BoD) studies addressing air pollution and noise, and whether these choices are adequately reported. Methods We carried out systematic literature searches in the MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, and Web of Science databases. We included studies that estimated BoD attributable to long-term exposure to ambient air pollution and environmental noise. Results In total, 92 studies were included in the scoping review. The majority (75%) assessed BoD attributable to air pollution only, while studies assessing noise or both risk factors were less frequent. Substantial diversity was observed in the choice of input data for exposure assessments, health outcomes, and exposure–response functions as well as in methodological choices of cut-off or counterfactual exposure level, uncertainty assessments, and approach for avoiding double counting of the disease burden. Insufficient reporting was most prevalent regarding cut-off values, choice of life table, and input data for exposure assessments. Conclusions This review revealed considerable variation in methods and input data used in BoD calculations for air pollution and noise, as well as inadequate reporting. Transparent reporting is necessary to ensure the applicability and comparability of BoD estimates, highlighting the need for guidelines for reporting of BoD studies on air pollution and noise.