PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: 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.
UNASSIGNED: 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.
UNASSIGNED: 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.
UNASSIGNED: 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.
UNASSIGNED: 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.
UNASSIGNED: 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.
UNASSIGNED: 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.
摘要：
我们评估了使用世界卫生组织（WHO）AirQ和AirQ+工具进行空气污染（AP）健康风险评估（HRA）的研究，并为未来评估提供了最佳实践建议。
我们使用WHO的AirQ和AirQ+工具对研究进行了全面审查，在几个数据库中搜索相关文章，reports,和论文从成立到2022年12月31日。
■我们确定了286项符合我们标准的研究。这些研究在69个国家进行，大多数（57%）在伊朗，其次是意大利和印度(各8%)。我们发现许多研究报告空气污染暴露数据不足，其质量,和有效性。关于分析人口规模的决定，感兴趣的健康结果，基线发病率，浓度-响应函数，相对风险值，反事实价值观往往是不合理的，足够。许多研究缺乏不确定性评估。
■我们的审查发现了已发布的评估中的一些常见缺陷。我们建议更好的做法，并敦促未来的研究关注输入数据的质量，其报告,和相关的不确定性。
我们使用WHO的AirQ和AirQ+工具对研究进行了全面审查，在几个数据库中搜索相关文章，reports,和论文从成立到2022年12月31日。
■我们确定了286项符合我们标准的研究。这些研究在69个国家进行，大多数（57%）在伊朗，其次是意大利和印度(各8%)。我们发现许多研究报告空气污染暴露数据不足，其质量,和有效性。关于分析人口规模的决定，感兴趣的健康结果，基线发病率，浓度-响应函数，相对风险值，反事实价值观往往是不合理的，足够。许多研究缺乏不确定性评估。
■我们的审查发现了已发布的评估中的一些常见缺陷。我们建议更好的做法，并敦促未来的研究关注输入数据的质量，其报告,和相关的不确定性。
