Reflections on the process of using systematic review techniques to evaluate the literature regarding the neurotoxicity of low level exposure to organophosphate pesticides
We undertook a systematic review (incorporating meta-analysis) of the literature concerning the neurotoxicity of cumulative low level occupational exposure to organophosphate pesticides, which was published online by the journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology in 2012. As far as we are aware, we were the first research team to attempt quantitative evaluation of study findings on this topic, using meta-analysis. We wish to encourage others to apply systematic review techniques in chemical risk assessment to reduce bias, increase transparency and better inform public policy. We thought it would be useful to share our experience of undertaking a systematic review in the hope of dispelling misconceptions about the complexity, time and resource issues involved along with the view that meta-analysis is meaningless when studies are not homogeneous. In this commentary paper we reflect on aspects of the process which were relatively straightforward; aspects which were more challenging; the advantages of using systematic review techniques; and the advantages and limitations of using statistical techniques such as meta-analysis in this context.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 November 2015.
All research outputs
#15,518,326
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Environment International
#3,778
of 5,187 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#149,542
of 295,362 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environment International
#39
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,187 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.8. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 295,362 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
