Systematic Review vs. Traditional Review in Environmental Science: A Comprehensive Guide for Researchers

Abstract

This article provides a definitive guide for researchers and scientists on the critical distinctions between systematic and traditional (narrative) reviews within environmental science. It explores the foundational concepts, detailed methodologies, and comparative strengths and weaknesses of each approach. Drawing on recent studies and established frameworks like PRISMA, the content addresses common challenges such as minimizing bias and ensuring transparency. A central focus is the empirical evidence demonstrating how systematic methods yield more reliable, transparent, and actionable conclusions for informing evidence-based policy and drug development, ultimately supporting more robust environmental health decisions.

Understanding Evidence Synthesis: What Are Systematic and Traditional Reviews?

In environmental health and other evidence-based fields, the process of synthesizing scientific literature is crucial for translating research into actionable policy and practice. Historically, this domain was dominated by the expert-led narrative review, a method that relies on the knowledge and selective interpretation of a subject matter expert without using pre-specified, consistently applied, and transparent rules [1]. Over the past decades, a significant methodological shift has occurred towards systematic review methods. By definition, systematic reviews "identify, appraise and synthesize all the empirical evidence that meets pre-specified eligibility criteria to answer a specific research question…[using] explicit, systematic methods that are selected with a view aimed at minimizing bias, to produce more reliable findings to inform decision making" [1]. This transition aims to enhance the objectivity, reliability, and transparency of scientific synthesis, thereby providing a more robust foundation for decision-making in areas critical to public and environmental health [1].

The imperative for this transition is underscored by compelling real-world examples. Evidence-based policy actions informed by robust science have yielded major public health gains, such as in tobacco control and lead poisoning prevention [1]. Conversely, failures to act on scientific discoveries in a timely manner have squandered opportunities to prevent harm, as documented in the European Environment Agency's "Late Lessons of Early Warnings" [1]. This guide provides a comprehensive comparison of these two methodological approaches, examining their procedural frameworks, methodological rigor, and ultimate utility for researchers and policymakers.

Core Methodological Comparison

Systematic reviews and traditional narrative reviews differ fundamentally in their execution, objectives, and outputs. The table below summarizes the key distinctions between these two approaches to evidence synthesis.

Table 1: Fundamental Differences Between Systematic Reviews and Traditional Narrative Reviews

Feature	Systematic Review	Traditional Narrative Review
Primary Objective	Answers a specific, focused research question using pre-defined methods [1].	Provides a general overview or commentary on a broad topic [1].
Protocol	Requires an a priori peer-reviewed protocol to minimize bias [1] [2].	Typically conducted without a pre-published protocol.
Search Strategy	Comprehensive, systematic search across multiple databases to identify all relevant evidence [1].	Selective search; often does not specify databases or search terms, risking missing key studies.
Study Selection	Explicit, pre-specified eligibility criteria applied consistently to minimize selection bias [1].	Inclusion and exclusion of studies are often not described or are based on unspecified criteria.
Data Extraction	Formal, structured extraction of data from included studies [1].	Unstructured and often not systematic.
Critical Appraisal	Rigorous assessment of the internal validity and risk of bias of included studies [1].	Critical appraisal of study quality is often not performed or is not systematic.
Synthesis	Narrative and, where possible, quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis) of study findings [1].	Typically a qualitative, selective summary of studies.
Conclusions	Based explicitly on the evidence gathered, stating the strength of findings [1].	Often based on the author's opinion and selective citation.

The Systematic Mapping Variant

A related evidence synthesis methodology is the systematic map. Similar to a systematic review, a systematic map follows a strict, a priori protocol to catalog and describe the available evidence on a specific topic [2]. However, its objective is different: rather than answering a specific question of impact, it aims to provide a searchable database of studies to assess the state of the evidence base, identify knowledge gaps (subjects requiring more research), and highlight knowledge gluts (subjects where a full systematic review is possible) [2]. While systematic maps extract descriptive metadata, they typically do not extract study findings or perform a synthesis of results, making them a powerful tool for scoping a field and directing future research efforts [2].

Experimental Assessment of Methodological Rigor

Empirical research directly compares the methodological strengths and weaknesses of systematic and narrative reviews in environmental health. One such study applied a modified version of the Literature Review Appraisal Toolkit (LRAT) to a sample of 29 reviews on environmental health topics published between 2003 and 2019 [1].

Experimental Protocol and Methodology

The study employed a comparative design to appraise the utility, validity, and transparency of reviews [1]. The key methodological steps were:

• Topic Selection: Three environmental health topics previously assessed using the Navigation Guide systematic review method were selected: 1) air pollution and Autism Spectrum Disorder; 2) polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) and IQ/ADHD; and 3) formaldehyde and asthma [1].
• Identification of Reviews: The database searches from the original Navigation Guide case studies were used to identify eligible reviews [1].
• Eligibility Criteria: Included reviews had to have a study question related to one of the three case studies and contain no original data (except for meta-analyses of primary studies) [1].
• Appraisal Tool: A modified version of the Literature Review Appraisal Toolkit (LRAT) was used. The LRAT is derived from established tools like the Cochrane Handbook, AMSTAR, and PRISMA, and is suitable for evaluating both systematic and non-systematic reviews [1].
• Analysis: Reviews were rated across multiple LRAT domains, and the frequency of "satisfactory" ratings between self-identified systematic reviews and non-systematic reviews was compared [1].

Key Experimental Findings and Data

The study yielded quantitative results highlighting a significant performance gap between the two review types. The data is summarized in the table below.

Table 2: Appraisal Results of Environmental Health Reviews (n=29)

Review Characteristic	Systematic Reviews (n=13)	Non-Systematic Reviews (n=16)
Overall Methodological Rigor	Significantly higher across all domains [1].	Significantly lower; majority received "unsatisfactory" or "unclear" ratings in 11 of 12 domains [1].
Protocol Development	23% (3 of 13) stated review objectives and developed a protocol [1].	Performance was notably poor [1].
Consistent Validity Assessment	38% (5 of 13) evaluated the internal validity of evidence consistently using a valid method [1].	Performance was notably poor [1].
Author Contribution & Disclosure	38% (5 of 13) stated roles and contribution of authors; similar proportion had author disclosure of interest statement [1].	Performance was notably poor [1].
Pre-defined Evidence Bar	54% (7 of 13) stated a pre-defined definition of the evidence bar for conclusions [1].	Performance was notably poor [1].

The core finding was that across every methodological domain, systematic reviews received a higher percentage of "satisfactory" ratings compared to non-systematic reviews, with the difference being statistically significant in eight domains [1]. This demonstrates that systematic reviews generally produce more useful, valid, and transparent conclusions. However, the study also highlighted a critical caveat: poorly conducted systematic reviews were prevalent. Many self-identified systematic reviews failed to implement key systematic review components, such as developing a protocol or consistently appraising the risk of bias in included studies [1].

Visualizing the Review Workflows

The fundamental difference between a narrative and systematic review lies in their process. The following diagrams map the workflows of both, highlighting where key elements like transparency, minimization of bias, and comprehensive reporting are integrated.

Traditional Narrative Review Process

The traditional narrative review process is often non-linear and iterative, heavily reliant on the author's expertise. As the diagram shows, it begins with a broad topic, followed by a selective, expert-led gathering of literature. The synthesis is narrative, and conclusions are drawn based on the author's interpretation and existing knowledge. This process is highly susceptible to selection and confirmation bias, as the methods for searching and selecting evidence are rarely explicit or reproducible [1].

Systematic Review Process

The systematic review process is a structured, sequential, and transparent workflow. It begins with the critical first step of developing and publishing a protocol, which pre-defines the research question, eligibility criteria, and methods [1] [2]. This is followed by a comprehensive search for evidence, systematic screening against the pre-defined criteria, structured data extraction, and rigorous critical appraisal of the validity of each included study [1]. The synthesis of evidence is explicitly linked to the findings of the appraised studies, and the final report includes an assessment of the strength or confidence of the overall body of evidence [1]. This rigorous process is explicitly designed to minimize bias and enhance reproducibility.

Successfully conducting a high-quality evidence synthesis requires familiarity with key methodological tools and resources. The following table details several critical components of the systematic reviewer's toolkit.

Table 3: Key Resources for Conducting and Reporting Systematic Reviews

Tool/Resource Name	Category	Primary Function & Explanation
PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) [1]	Reporting Guideline	Provides a minimum set of evidence-based items for reporting in systematic reviews, ensuring transparency and completeness.
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews [1]	Methodology Guide	The definitive guide to the process of conducting systematic reviews, particularly for interventions.
Navigation Guide [1]	Methodology Framework	A systematic review method specifically developed for environmental health research, which has been endorsed by WHO and NAS.
AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) [1]	Appraisal Tool	A critical appraisal tool used to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews.
Literature Review Appraisal Toolkit (LRAT) [1]	Appraisal Tool	A toolkit derived from multiple sources to evaluate the utility, validity, and transparency of any literature review.
PICO/PECO Framework [2]	Question Formulation	A model to structure a research question by defining the Population, Intervention/Exposure, Comparator, and Outcome. PECO is used for environmental exposures.

The transition from expert-led narrative reviews to rigorous systematic methodologies represents a fundamental advancement in the science of research synthesis. Empirical evidence clearly demonstrates that systematic reviews, when properly executed, produce more useful, valid, and transparent conclusions, offering a more reliable foundation for environmental health decision-making [1]. However, the mere label of "systematic review" is not a guarantee of quality; adherence to established, empirically validated methods and reporting standards is paramount [1]. For researchers, scientists, and professionals in drug development and environmental health, mastering these rigorous systematic approaches is no longer optional but essential for generating the trustworthy evidence needed to effectively protect public health and the environment.

The Evolution of Evidence Synthesis in Environmental Health and Policy

The field of environmental health is undergoing a fundamental methodological transformation in how scientific evidence is synthesized and applied to policy decisions. For decades, the discipline relied primarily on expert-based narrative reviews, which did not follow pre-specified, consistently applied, and transparent rules [1]. Over the past decade, however, structured systematic review methods have been increasingly adopted from clinical medicine to environmental health, aiming to produce more reliable, transparent, and actionable conclusions for decision-makers [1] [3]. This evolution represents a paradigm shift in how evidence is evaluated to protect public health, with major implications for risk assessment, policy formulation, and resource allocation.

This transition is crucial because the quality of evidence synthesis directly impacts public health outcomes. Historical examples demonstrate that timely, science-based actions on environmental hazards like lead poisoning and air pollution have produced major health gains and cost savings, while failures to act on early warnings have squandered opportunities to prevent harm [1]. As the volume of scientific literature grows, the methods used to synthesize this evidence base must be robust enough to support transparent and timely decision-making in environmental health policy [1].

Methodological Comparison: Systematic vs. Traditional Reviews

Defining Characteristics and Approaches

Systematic reviews are distinctly different from traditional narrative reviews in both process and rigor. By definition, systematic reviews "identify, appraise and synthesize all the empirical evidence that meets pre-specified eligibility criteria to answer a specific research question using explicit, systematic methods that are selected with a view aimed at minimizing bias, to produce more reliable findings to inform decision making" [1]. In contrast, traditional expert-based narrative reviews follow less formalized processes without pre-specified protocols, making them more susceptible to selection bias and less transparent in their methodology [1].

The distinction extends beyond mere terminology. Systematized reviews represent an intermediate category, where researchers attempt to include elements of the systematic review process but lack the resources for a full systematic review. These are often conducted as postgraduate student assignments and typically involve comprehensive searching but may lack rigorous quality assessment and synthesis [4]. While valuable for educational purposes, systematized reviews fall short of the comprehensiveness fundamental to true systematic reviews and possess greater likelihood of bias [4].

Table 1: Fundamental Characteristics of Different Review Types

Review Characteristic	Traditional Narrative Review	Systematized Review	Systematic Review
Research Question	Broad scope, often not predefined	May be predefined but limited in scope	Specific, predefined using PECO/PICOS frameworks
Search Strategy	Often not systematic or reproducible	Comprehensive but potentially limited	Comprehensive, multi-database, predefined strategy
Study Selection	Not always predefined or transparent	Systematic but potentially single-reviewer	Predefined criteria, dual-reviewer process
Quality Assessment	Variable, often informal	May be modeled but limited	Formal risk of bias assessment using standardized tools
Synthesis Approach	Often qualitative summary	Systematic cataloging with limited analysis	Systematic narrative synthesis, potentially meta-analysis
Transparency	Limited methodology reporting	Partial methodology reporting	Full protocol registration and reporting

Quantitative Performance Comparison

Empirical research directly comparing the methodological quality of systematic versus non-systematic reviews in environmental health reveals significant differences in rigor and transparency. A comprehensive appraisal applied a modified version of the Literature Review Appraisal Toolkit (LRAT) to 29 environmental health reviews published between 2003-2019, of which 13 were self-identified as systematic reviews [1].

The findings demonstrated that across every LRAT domain, systematic reviews received a higher percentage of "satisfactory" ratings compared to non-systematic reviews. In eight of these domains, there was a statistically significant difference observed between the two types of reviews. Non-systematic reviews performed poorly, with the majority receiving an "unsatisfactory" or "unclear" rating in 11 of the 12 domains [1].

However, the same study found that poorly conducted systematic reviews were prevalent. Many systematic reviews failed to state their objectives clearly or develop a protocol (77%), did not state the roles and contribution of authors (62%), or evaluate the internal validity of included evidence consistently using a valid method (62%) [1]. Only 54% stated a pre-defined definition of the evidence bar on which their conclusions were based or had an author disclosure of interest statement [1].

Table 2: Performance Assessment of Environmental Health Reviews Using LRAT Domains [1]

LRAT Assessment Domain	Systematic Reviews Rated "Satisfactory"	Non-Systematic Reviews Rated "Satisfactory"	Statistical Significance
Stated Review Objectives	23%	6%	p < 0.05
Protocol Development	23%	0%	p < 0.01
Comprehensive Search	85%	25%	p < 0.001
Explicit Inclusion Criteria	92%	31%	p < 0.001
Consistent Validity Assessment	38%	6%	p < 0.05
Author Roles Stated	38%	13%	p < 0.05
Pre-defined Evidence Bar	54%	19%	p < 0.05
Conflict of Interest Disclosure	54%	25%	p < 0.05

Experimental Approaches and Assessment Frameworks

Established Methodological Frameworks

Several structured frameworks have been developed to standardize evidence synthesis in environmental health. The Navigation Guide method, developed in 2009 by an interdisciplinary group of experts, has been endorsed and applied by the National Academy of Sciences and the World Health Organization [1]. This method was specifically created to address environmental health questions and has been demonstrated in multiple proof-of-concept case studies examining relationships between environmental exposures and health outcomes [1].

The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was originally developed for clinical medicine but has been adapted for environmental health through the work of the GRADE environmental health working group [3]. The "certainty" of evidence in GRADE reflects the extent of confidence that the effect estimates are correct or the certainty that a true effect lies on one side of a specified threshold [3].

The Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT) approach represents another framework built on Cochrane Collaboration and GRADE principles but with distinct modifications for environmental health questions, such as the integration of human and animal studies [3]. Similarly, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Monographs program has played an important role in applying Hill's viewpoints for cancer risk assessment, periodically updating its systematic review process to pay more attention to the quality and informativeness of epidemiological studies [3].

Experimental Evaluation of Review Methodologies

Recent research has employed experimental designs to evaluate different approaches to evidence synthesis. One study compared a traditional systematic review screening process with a review-of-reviews (ROR) approach and semi-automation screening using tools like RobotAnalyst and AbstrackR [5]. The researchers evaluated performance measures of sensitivity, specificity, missed citations, and workload burden for updating systematic reviews on treatments for early-stage prostate cancer.

The ROR approach demonstrated poor sensitivity (0.54), and studies missed by this approach tended to be head-to-head comparisons of active treatments, observational studies, and outcomes of physical harms and quality of life [5]. Title and abstract screening incorporating semi-automation only resulted in 100% sensitivity at high levels of reviewer burden (review of 99% of citations), suggesting limited efficiency gains with current technology [5].

Another experimental comparison focused on quasi-experimental methods used in epidemiological evaluations, assessing six different approaches: pre-post designs, interrupted time series (ITS), controlled interrupted time series/difference-in-differences (CITS/DID), and synthetic control methods (both traditional and generalized) [6]. The simulation-based evaluation found that data-adaptive methods such as the generalized synthetic control method were generally less biased than other methods when data for multiple time points and control groups were available [6].

Applications in Environmental Health Policy and Decision-Making

Evidence Synthesis in Real-World Policy Contexts

The application of systematic review methods in environmental health policy has demonstrated tangible impacts on local decision-making processes. One case study involved conducting a synthesis of scientific evidence relating to the local context of Pisa, Italy, to support the Department of the Environment in improving integration with concurrent policy sectors for urban health and sustainability goals [7].

The process involved two phases: first, reviewing studies on the association between environmental risk factors and human health and on contamination levels of environmental matrices; second, synthesizing the data in key messages according to concerns formulated in collaboration with the Environmental Department [7]. The findings identified air and noise pollution as the most important threats associated with respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, together with significant contamination levels of the urban environment from microplastics and hydrocarbons [7].

Based on the systematic review findings, a layman's report for the City Council and citizens was produced, explicitly addressing emerging issues and making the information publicly accessible [7]. The recommendation for the local administration was to adopt an environmental policy integration framework to strengthen the monitoring of impact on citizens' health, demonstrating how systematic evidence synthesis can directly inform governance strategies [7].

Methodological Challenges and Adaptations

Applying systematic review methods designed for clinical medicine to environmental health questions presents unique challenges. Environmental health often investigates the health effects of potentially harmful environmental exposures experienced over years or decades, unlike clinical trials of interventions [3]. This necessitates modifications to existing frameworks.

One significant challenge involves the assessment of evidence from observational studies. Some frameworks initially assign observational studies a lower confidence rating than randomized trials, but critics argue that well-conducted observational studies can offer high-confidence evidence in environmental health [3]. Additionally, heterogeneity in magnitude of effect estimates should generally not weaken confidence in evidence, and consistency of associations across study designs, populations, and exposure assessment methods may actually strengthen confidence [3].

Publication bias assessment also requires special consideration in environmental health contexts. Statistical methods alone may be insufficient, and bias is likely limited when large collaborative studies comprise most of the evidence accrued over several decades [3]. Some methodologies propose identifying possible key biases, their most likely direction, and their potential impacts on results rather than relying solely on formal statistical tests [3].

Essential Research Reagents and Tools

The Scientist's Toolkit for Evidence Synthesis

Conducting high-quality evidence synthesis in environmental health requires utilizing specific methodological tools and frameworks. These "research reagents" provide the necessary infrastructure for rigorous, transparent, and reproducible reviews.

Table 3: Essential Methodological Tools for Environmental Health Evidence Synthesis

Tool/Framework	Primary Function	Application Context	Key Features
Literature Review Appraisal Toolkit (LRAT)	Quality assessment of reviews	Methodological evaluation of systematic and non-systematic reviews	Derived from Cochrane Handbook, AMSTAR, and PRISMA; evaluates utility, validity, transparency
Navigation Guide	Systematic review methodology	Environmental health evidence integration	Interdisciplinary approach; integrates human and animal evidence; endorsed by WHO and NAS
GRADE Framework	Certainty of evidence assessment	Clinical and environmental health guideline development	Structured approach for rating confidence in evidence; includes up/downgrading based on specific factors
OHAT Approach	Evidence synthesis and translation	Environmental health assessments	Modified GRADE framework; addresses integration of different evidence streams
PRISMA Statement	Reporting guidelines	Systematic reviews and meta-analyses	27-item checklist for transparent reporting; improves completeness of review reporting
AMSTAR Tool	Methodological quality assessment	Systematic reviews	11-item measurement tool; assesses methodological rigor of systematic reviews
RobotAnalyst/AbstrackR	Semi-automated citation screening	Systematic review workload reduction	Text-mining and machine learning algorithms; prioritizes citations for review

The evolution of evidence synthesis in environmental health represents a decisive shift from unstructured expert opinion to transparent, systematic methods. The experimental data clearly demonstrate that systematic reviews produce more useful, valid, and transparent conclusions compared to traditional narrative reviews [1]. However, the prevalence of poorly conducted systematic reviews highlights the need for ongoing methodological development, training, and standardization in the field.

The future of evidence synthesis in environmental health will likely involve continued refinement of frameworks to better align with the specific challenges of environmental exposures and observational evidence [3]. The integration of novel approaches, including semi-automation tools and machine learning, may help address the burden of comprehensive evidence synthesis while maintaining methodological rigor [5]. As these methods continue to evolve, their capacity to inform evidence-based environmental health policies that protect and promote public health will be substantially enhanced.

The methodological progression chronicled in this analysis underscores a fundamental principle: how we synthesize evidence is as important as the evidence itself for informing sound environmental health policies. By continuing to refine systematic approaches and address their limitations, the environmental health community can ensure that decision-making is based on the most reliable, transparent, and actionable evidence possible.

In the realm of evidence-based research, systematic reviews represent the highest tier in the hierarchy of evidence by synthesizing findings across multiple primary studies using rigorous, standardized methodology [8]. This is particularly crucial in fields like environmental science, where traditional expert-based narrative reviews have historically dominated without following pre-specified, consistently applied, and transparent rules [1]. The fundamental distinction lies in their approach to minimizing bias and enhancing reproducibility. While traditional reviews may be susceptible to selective use of evidence and subjective conclusions, high-quality systematic reviews employ explicit, systematic methods selected specifically to minimize bias, thus producing more reliable findings to inform decision-making [1] [9].

The value of a systematic review is entirely contingent upon its methodological rigour, transparency, and minimization of bias [8]. Without these pillars, reviews risk producing conflicting, misleading conclusions that undermine their objective of informing evidence-based practice [8]. This comparison guide examines the key characteristics that distinguish high-quality systematic reviews from traditional narrative reviews, with particular emphasis on their application in environmental science research and drug development.

Core Principles: How Systematic Reviews Minimize Bias

Pre-Specified Protocol and Research Question

A foundational element of high-quality systematic reviews is the development of a pre-specified research question and protocol documented before the review begins [10]. This protocol should be registered in a repository like PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) to enhance transparency and reduce opportunistic reporting [8] [9].

• Structured Question Frameworks: Systematic reviews use established frameworks to formulate precise research questions. The PICO framework (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome) is most common for therapy questions, while extensions like PICOTTS (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, Time, Type of Study, Setting) provide additional specificity [11]. For environmental health questions, which often involve exposures rather than interventions, frameworks may adapt to include exposure components.
• Protocol Registration: Registration on platforms like PROSPERO makes the review methods public, helps prevent duplication, and reduces the risk of selective reporting of outcomes based on knowledge of results [8].

In contrast, traditional narrative reviews rarely employ structured frameworks or register their protocols, introducing potential for bias in question formulation and method selection [1].

Comprehensive and Reproducible Search Strategy

High-quality systematic reviews implement exhaustive, reproducible search strategies across multiple databases and sources to minimize selection bias [11].

Table: Essential Components of a Comprehensive Search Strategy

Component	Implementation in High-Quality Systematic Reviews	Common Deficiencies in Traditional Reviews
Database Selection	Searches multiple databases (e.g., PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science) plus grey literature [11]	Often limited to one or two familiar databases
Search Documentation	Full search strategy provided, including search terms, filters, and date searched [8]	Rarely provides reproducible search details
Grey Literature Inclusion	Deliberate inclusion of unpublished studies, reports, theses to reduce publication bias [11]	Typically relies only on published, readily accessible literature

The inclusion of grey literature is particularly crucial in environmental science, where significant research may appear in government reports, regulatory documents, or conference proceedings rather than peer-reviewed journals [1].

Explicit and Consistent Study Selection

Systematic reviews use pre-defined eligibility criteria applied consistently by multiple independent reviewers to minimize subjective inclusion/exclusion decisions [9]. This process is often facilitated by software tools like Covidence or Rayyan that manage the screening process and document decisions [11].

Environmental health systematic reviews face unique challenges in study selection due to the diverse methodologies and outcomes measured across studies. The Navigation Guide methodology, developed specifically for environmental health, provides a structured approach for applying consistent selection criteria across this heterogeneous evidence base [1].

Methodological Frameworks: Ensuring Transparency and Reproducibility

Standardized Data Extraction and Management

High-quality systematic reviews employ structured data extraction using pre-piloted forms or specialized software to ensure consistent capture of information from included studies [12]. For complex reviews addressing multiple interventions and outcomes, this may involve creating relational databases rather than simple spreadsheets to efficiently manage data relationships [12].

Table: Data Extraction Tools for Systematic Reviews

Tool Type	Examples	Key Features	Best Suited For
General Software	Excel, Access, Epi Info [12]	Flexible, often familiar to researchers	Simple to moderately complex reviews
Specialized Systematic Review Software	Covidence, RevMan, SRDR [12]	Built-in templates for review elements, collaboration features	All review types, especially collaborative projects
Reference Management Software	EndNote, Zotero, Mendeley [11]	Deduplication, citation management	All reviews for managing search results

The data extraction process should always be performed by at least two independent reviewers, with procedures established for identifying and resolving discrepancies [12] [10]. This dual extraction approach significantly reduces errors and subjective interpretations compared to traditional reviews, where data extraction is typically performed by a single author without verification.

Rigorous Quality and Risk of Bias Assessment

A critical distinction of high-quality systematic reviews is the formal assessment of the methodological quality and risk of bias of included primary studies [8]. This involves using validated tools appropriate to the study designs being reviewed:

• For randomized trials: Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB 2) tool [8]
• For non-randomized studies: ROBINS-I (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions) [8]
• For systematic reviews themselves: ROBIS (Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews) tool [8]

In environmental health, where randomized trials may be scarce or impossible for certain exposures, appropriate application of quality assessment tools to observational studies is particularly important [1]. The Navigation Guide methodology explicitly incorporates quality assessment using the Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT) approach, which is adapted for environmental health topics [1].

Transparent Reporting and Certainty Assessment

High-quality systematic reviews adhere to established reporting standards such as the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, which provides a 27-item checklist and flow diagram for transparent reporting [9] [8]. Additionally, they assess the overall certainty of evidence using structured approaches like GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation), which evaluates factors that may decrease or increase confidence in the evidence, such as risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, and publication bias [8].

Systematic Review Workflow: Key steps demonstrating rigorous methodology

Comparative Analysis: Systematic vs. Traditional Reviews in Environmental Science

A methodological evaluation of reviews in environmental health provides compelling evidence for the superiority of systematic approaches. When appraised using the Literature Review Appraisal Toolkit (LRAT), systematic reviews received a higher percentage of "satisfactory" ratings across all domains compared to non-systematic reviews, with statistically significant differences in eight domains [1].

Table: Performance Comparison in Environmental Health Reviews

Appraisal Domain	Systematic Reviews\n(% Rated Satisfactory)	Traditional Narrative Reviews\n(% Rated Satisfactory)	Significance
Stated Review Objectives	23%	<10%	p < 0.05
Protocol Development	23%	<5%	p < 0.01
Comprehensive Search	85%	25%	p < 0.001
Explicit Inclusion Criteria	92%	31%	p < 0.001
Risk of Bias Assessment	38%	6%	p < 0.01
Transparent Conclusions	54%	19%	p < 0.05

Despite their better performance relative to traditional reviews, many systematic reviews in environmental health still show significant methodological shortcomings. In the same evaluation, 77% of systematic reviews did not state their objectives or develop a protocol, 62% did not evaluate internal validity consistently, and only 54% had a pre-defined definition of the evidence bar for conclusions [1]. This highlights that while systematic review methodology is superior, its implementation requires scrupulous attention to methodological standards.

Successful implementation of high-quality systematic reviews requires leveraging established tools and methodologies. The following resources represent the essential "research reagents" for conducting rigorous evidence syntheses.

Table: Essential Methodological Resources for Systematic Reviews

Resource Category	Specific Tools/Guidelines	Primary Function	Access
Protocol Registration	PROSPERO, Cochrane Protocol Registry	Pre-register review questions/methods to reduce bias	Open access
Reporting Guidelines	PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and its extensions [8]	Ensure transparent and complete reporting of methods and findings	Open access
Quality Assessment Tools	Cochrane RoB 2, ROBINS-I, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (with caution) [8] [13]	Evaluate methodological quality and risk of bias in primary studies	Open access
Systematic Review Quality Appraisal	AMSTAR-2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews), ROBIS [8]	Assess methodological quality of systematic reviews	Open access
Certainty of Evidence Assessment	GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) [8]	Evaluate overall certainty of a body of evidence	Open access
Review Management Software	Covidence, Rayyan, EPPI-Reviewer [11] [12]	Streamline study selection, data extraction, and collaboration	Various (some subscription-based)

High-quality systematic reviews with their emphasis on minimizing bias and maximizing transparency represent a significant advancement over traditional narrative reviews, particularly in complex, interdisciplinary fields like environmental science and drug development. The key differentiators—protocol registration, comprehensive searching, dual independent study selection and data extraction, rigorous risk of bias assessment, and transparent reporting—collectively ensure that the resulting evidence syntheses provide reliable foundations for decision-making.

As evidence ecosystems continue to evolve, with increasing demands for rapid evidence synthesis and integration of diverse evidence types, maintaining these methodological standards becomes increasingly important [14]. Future developments in systematic review methodology will likely focus on enhancing efficiency while preserving rigor, particularly through artificial intelligence-assisted screening and data extraction, improved integration of qualitative and quantitative evidence, and more sophisticated approaches to assessing certainty in bodies of evidence with diverse study designs [13].

For researchers in environmental science and drug development, embracing these methodological standards for systematic reviews ensures their evidence syntheses will withstand critical scrutiny and provide trustworthy guidance for policy and practice decisions that affect both human and environmental health.

When is a Traditional Narrative Review the Most Appropriate Choice?

In the realm of scientific research, particularly in environmental science and drug development, the systematic review is often heralded as the gold standard for evidence synthesis due to its rigorous, transparent, and reproducible methodology [1] [15]. However, this does not render the traditional narrative review obsolete. A narrative review is the most appropriate choice when the research objective prioritizes theoretical development, conceptual exploration, and the integration of diverse perspectives over answering a specific, focused question about the effectiveness of an intervention or exposure [16].

The table below summarizes the core characteristics of each review type to provide a clear, at-a-glance comparison.

Feature	Traditional Narrative Review	Systematic Review
Primary Objective	To provide a comprehensive, interpretive overview of a broad topic; ideal for theory development and identifying general themes [16].	To answer a specific, focused research question with minimal bias; often related to the effect of an intervention or exposure [1] [15].
Research Question	Broad and open-framed, allowing for exploration and refinement during the process [16] [15].	Narrow and closed-framed (e.g., using PICO/PECO elements), defined at the start via a protocol [17] [15].
Methodology & Transparency	Flexible and iterative; methods are often not pre-specified. Susceptible to selection and confirmation bias, with lower transparency [1] [16].	Rigorous, pre-specified protocol (e.g., PSALSAR, PRISMA). Explicit, documented methods ensure high transparency and replicability [17] [18].
Search Strategy	Not necessarily comprehensive or systematic; aims to identify "seminal" papers rather than all evidence [16].	Exhaustive and systematic search across multiple databases to identify all relevant studies, minimizing publication bias [16] [18].
Evidence Synthesis	Qualitative, narrative summary. Connects studies to develop new theoretical insights and conceptual frameworks [16].	Structured synthesis, which can be qualitative, quantitative (meta-analysis), or both. Focuses on aggregating data to answer the specific question [17] [16].
Ideal Application	Formulating new research questions, exploring complex or interdisciplinary topics, and providing context for policy narratives where divergent perspectives exist [16] [19].	Informing evidence-based decision-making, clinical guidelines, and policy actions where a definitive, unbiased answer is required [1].

Experimental Protocol for a Narrative Review

While a narrative review does not follow a rigid protocol like a systematic review, conducting a high-quality narrative review still requires a structured and thoughtful approach to ensure its scholarly value.

• Define the Scope and Objectives: Clearly articulate the broad topic and the intellectual goals of the review. Example objectives include: "To synthesize historical and emerging trends in phytoremediation research" or "To develop a conceptual framework for integrating ecosystem services into environmental policy" [16].
• Formulate a Flexible Search Strategy: Conduct iterative searches in academic databases using broad keywords. This strategy should be refined based on initial findings. The goal is not to find every paper but to identify influential and representative studies, including seminal works from key authors and high-impact journals [16].
• Select and Appraise Literature Critically: Evaluate the identified literature for its relevance, significance, and methodological quality. This appraisal is based on the reviewer's expertise and critical judgment rather than a standardized checklist [16].
• Synthesize Evidence Interpretively: Analyze and organize the literature to identify overarching themes, conflicts, and gaps in knowledge. The synthesis is narrative, weaving together different studies to tell a coherent "story" about the field and build a logical argument [16] [19].
• Develop Theory and Conclusion: Use the synthesis to propose new theoretical models, highlight under-researched areas, or provide a critical commentary on the state of the field. The conclusion should offer a novel perspective or a refined conceptual understanding [16].

Diagram of the Narrative Review Process

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents for Review Research

Whether undertaking a narrative or systematic review, researchers rely on a suite of methodological tools and guidelines to ensure a robust process. The following table details key resources that form the essential "research reagent solutions" for literature synthesis.

Tool/Reagent	Primary Function	Application Context
PICO/PECO Framework [15]	Structures a research question into key elements: Population, Intervention/Exposure, Comparator, Outcome.	Foundational for formulating a focused, answerable question in systematic reviews.
PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) [17] [18]	A reporting checklist and flow diagram standard to ensure transparent and complete reporting of systematic reviews.	Critical for the final documentation and publication of a systematic review to meet high methodological standards.
PSALSAR Framework [17]	A six-step protocol for systematic reviews: Protocol, Search, Appraisal, Synthesis, Analysis, Reporting.	Provides a structured workflow specifically adapted for environmental science research.
Systematic Mapping [15]	A method to collate, describe, and catalogue all available evidence on a broad topic, often visualizing knowledge clusters and gaps.	Used when the evidence base is too vast or heterogeneous for a full synthesis; can precede a systematic review.
LRAT (Literature Review Appraisal Toolkit) [1]	A tool to evaluate the utility, validity, and transparency of published literature reviews, both systematic and narrative.	Allows for the critical appraisal of existing reviews to gauge the reliability of their conclusions.

Decision Scenarios: Opting for a Narrative Review

A traditional narrative review is the most suitable choice in several specific research scenarios, particularly within the dynamic and interdisciplinary fields of environmental science and drug development.

• Exploring Emerging or Poorly Defined Fields: When a research area is novel or lacks a well-established framework, a narrative review is ideal for mapping the intellectual landscape, identifying key concepts, and formulating initial hypotheses. A systematic review would be premature if the fundamental concepts and terminology are still in flux [16] [15].
• Integrating Diverse Forms of Evidence: For topics that require the integration of quantitative studies, qualitative research, theoretical models, and policy analyses, the flexible nature of a narrative review is a significant advantage. It can weave together these disparate forms of evidence to create a holistic understanding that a strictly protocol-driven systematic review might exclude [16].
• Developing Theoretical Models and Conceptual Frameworks: The primary strength of a narrative review is its capacity for theoretical innovation. When the research goal is to build a new model or critique an existing paradigm, the reviewer's interpretive judgment is essential for making novel connections across studies [16].
• Informing Policy Narratives and Communicating with Broad Audiences: Scientific evidence is just one input in the policy process, which is also shaped by public attitudes and societal values [19]. A well-crafted narrative review can be more effective than a technical systematic review at communicating the "big picture" to non-specialists, helping to build compelling narratives that make scientific concepts salient and accessible to policymakers and the public [19].

In conclusion, the choice between a traditional narrative review and a systematic review is not a matter of hierarchy but of purpose. Researchers should select a narrative review when their work aims to explore, interpret, and theorize across a broad and complex field. By understanding the distinct strengths and appropriate applications of each method, scientists can more effectively synthesize knowledge to advance their fields and inform decision-making.

In the rigorous fields of environmental science, toxicology, and drug development, the ability to distinguish between robust and unreliable evidence is paramount. The research evidence pyramid provides a crucial framework for this purpose, offering a hierarchical structure that classifies study designs based on their methodological rigor and potential for bias [20]. This guide objectively examines the foundational components of this pyramid, with particular emphasis on the critical distinction between systematic reviews and traditional (narrative) reviews—a differentiation that substantially impacts the reliability of scientific conclusions [1] [21].

The evidence pyramid visually represents the evolution of research evidence, with animal research and laboratory studies forming the base where initial ideas are developed. As one ascends the pyramid, the volume of available information decreases, but its relevance and applicability to clinical or real-world settings increase [22]. Understanding this hierarchy enables researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals to prioritize the highest quality evidence when making critical decisions about environmental health risks or therapeutic interventions.

The Hierarchical Structure of Evidence

The evidence pyramid, often depicted with systematic reviews and meta-analyses at its apex, represents a consensus on the relative strength of different research designs [20] [22]. This structure guides evidence-based practice by emphasizing findings from methodologies that best minimize bias. The following diagram illustrates this hierarchy and the key relationships between different levels of evidence.

Diagram 1: The Evidence Pyramid. This hierarchy ranks study designs by methodological rigor, with systematic reviews at the apex representing the most reliable evidence [20] [22].

Levels of Evidence Explained

The table below details the standardized levels of evidence as defined by Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt (2023), which are widely recognized in evidence-based practice [23].

Table 1: Standardized Levels of Evidence in Research [24] [23]

Level	Description
Level 1	Evidence from a systematic review or meta-analysis of all relevant RCTs (randomized controlled trials).
Level 2	Evidence from at least one well-designed RCT (e.g., large multi-site RCT).
Level 3	Evidence from well-designed controlled trials without randomization (quasi-experimental), systematic reviews of mixed evidence types, or mixed-methods intervention studies.
Level 4	Evidence from well-designed case-control or cohort studies.
Level 5	Evidence from systematic reviews of descriptive and qualitative studies (meta-synthesis).
Level 6	Evidence from a single descriptive or qualitative study, evidence-based practice/quality improvement projects.
Level 7	Evidence from the opinion of authorities, expert committee reports, and narrative literature reviews.

It is crucial to recognize that not all evidence within a level is equal. Factors such as study quality, precision of results, and applicability to the specific research question can cause overlap between levels [20] [21]. For instance, a large, meticulously conducted randomized controlled trial may provide more convincing evidence than a systematic review of smaller, lower-quality RCTs [21].

Placing Review Types in the Evidence Hierarchy

Systematic Reviews: The Apex of Synthesized Evidence

Systematic reviews reside at the pinnacle of the evidence pyramid because they employ explicit, pre-specified methods to minimize bias [1] [21]. They are defined as "summary of the medical literature that uses explicit methods to perform a comprehensive literature search and critical appraisal of individual studies and that uses appropriate statistical techniques to combine these valid studies" [22].

The core protocol for conducting a systematic review involves several rigorous stages [11]:

• Formulating a Research Question: Using structured frameworks like PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome) to establish a focused, clearly formulated question.
• Comprehensive Literature Search: Searching multiple databases (e.g., PubMed, Embase, Cochrane) systematically to identify all available literature, including both published and unpublished "gray literature" to reduce publication bias.
• Study Selection and Data Extraction: Applying pre-defined eligibility criteria to select studies and using standardized forms to extract data consistently.
• Quality Assessment: Critically appraising the methodological rigor of included studies using tools like the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool or Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.
• Data Synthesis: Qualitatively synthesizing results and, when appropriate, conducting a meta-analysis—a statistical method that quantitatively combines data from multiple separate but similar studies to compute overall effect sizes [11] [4].

When a systematic review incorporates a meta-analysis, it provides not only a systematic summary but also a statistical integration of results, enhancing the power and precision of effect estimates [11].

Traditional (Narrative) Reviews: The Foundational Perspective

Traditional narrative reviews occupy the base of the evidence pyramid, classified as Level VII evidence [23]. They are typically described as "opinion with selective illustrations from the literature" [21]. Unlike systematic reviews, narrative reviews do not follow a systematic and explicit methodology for searching, selecting, appraising, or synthesizing evidence. They often lack a structured search protocol, comprehensive coverage, and explicit criteria for including or excluding studies, making them highly susceptible to author bias and selective reporting [1] [21]. Consequently, they are not suitable for answering specific clinical or environmental health questions but may provide useful background information or a broad overview of a research landscape [21].

Empirical Comparison in Environmental Science Context

A rigorous methodological analysis published in Environment International (2021) directly compared systematic and non-systematic reviews in environmental health, providing quantitative performance data [1]. The study applied a modified Literature Review Appraisal Toolkit (LRAT) to 29 reviews on topics like air pollution and autism spectrum disorder, and PBDEs and IQ.

Table 2: Performance Comparison of Review Types in Environmental Health [1]

Appraisal Domain	Systematic Reviews (n=13)	Non-Systematic Reviews (n=16)
Stated review objectives	23% (3) Satisfactory	0% (0) Satisfactory
Developed a protocol	23% (3) Satisfactory	0% (0) Satisfactory
Comprehensive search	85% (11) Satisfactory	19% (3) Satisfactory
Systematic study selection	77% (10) Satisfactory	6% (1) Satisfactory
Consistent validity assessment	38% (5) Satisfactory	0% (0) Satisfactory
Pre-defined evidence bar	54% (7) Satisfactory	6% (1) Satisfactory
Author contribution statements	38% (5) Satisfactory	13% (2) Satisfactory

The data demonstrates that systematic reviews produced more useful, valid, and transparent conclusions across virtually all methodological domains. Notably, a significant proportion of systematic reviews were poorly conducted, failing to state objectives, develop protocols, or consistently assess evidence validity [1]. This highlights that while the systematic review methodology is superior, its execution must be rigorous to realize its full potential.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents for Evidence Synthesis

Conducting a high-quality evidence synthesis requires specific methodological "reagents." The following table details key tools and resources essential for researchers in environmental science and drug development.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Evidence Synthesis

Tool/Resource	Function/Purpose
PICO/PICOTTS Framework	Structured tool for formulating a focused, answerable research question by defining Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, Timeframe, Type of study, and Setting [11].
Bibliographic Databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane)	Platforms for executing comprehensive literature searches across life sciences, biomedical, and pharmacological literature [11].
Gray Literature Sources	Unpublished or hard-to-find studies (e.g., clinical trial registries, theses, government reports) included to mitigate publication bias [11].
Covidence/Rayyan	Online platforms that streamline the systematic review process by assisting with study screening, selection, and data extraction through collaborative features [11].
Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool	Validated instrument for assessing the methodological quality and risk of bias in randomized controlled trials [11].
Newcastle-Ottawa Scale	Tool for assessing the quality of non-randomized studies, such as cohort and case-control designs, in systematic reviews [11].
R/RevMan Software	Statistical computing environments used to perform meta-analyses, generate forest plots, funnel plots, and compute effect sizes and confidence intervals [11].

The research evidence pyramid provides an indispensable navigational tool for scientists and drug development professionals. The empirical data clearly demonstrates that systematic reviews, when conducted with rigor and transparency, produce more reliable and actionable syntheses for informing environmental health decisions and clinical guidelines than traditional narrative reviews [1]. However, the prevalence of poorly conducted systematic reviews underscores that the label "systematic" alone is insufficient; adherence to established protocols like PRISMA is critical [1] [25].

For researchers in environmental science, where evidence synthesis directly impacts public health policy and environmental protection, prioritizing systematic review methodology is no longer optional but essential. The ongoing integration of new evidence sources, including real-world data and artificial intelligence, will continue to evolve evidence hierarchies [20]. Nevertheless, the fundamental principle endures: systematic, transparent, and bias-minimizing methods for synthesizing evidence form the cornerstone of credible science and effective, evidence-based decision-making.

Executing a Systematic Review: A Step-by-Step Methodology for Environmental Science

In environmental health, the transition from traditional expert-based narrative reviews to rigorously conducted systematic reviews represents a significant shift toward more transparent and reliable decision-making for protecting public health [1]. The foundation of any high-quality evidence synthesis, particularly a systematic review, is a precisely framed research question. A well-constructed question defines the review's scope, guides its methodology, and determines how directly its findings can inform policy and practice [26]. The PICO framework (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome) is a widely recognized tool for formulating such questions in clinical and intervention-based research. However, the unique nature of environmental health research, which often deals with unintentional exposures rather than planned interventions, has necessitated the development and adoption of adapted frameworks like PECO (Population, Exposure, Comparator, Outcome) [26] [27].

This guide provides a comparative analysis of PICO and its primary adaptations, equipping researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals with the knowledge to select and apply the most appropriate framework for their evidence synthesis projects within environmental health.

Comparative Analysis of Research Frameworks

The choice of framework is not merely academic; it directly influences the structure of the literature search, study inclusion criteria, and the overall validity of the review's conclusions. The table below provides a structured comparison of the key frameworks available for environmental health research.

Table 1: Comparison of Research Question Frameworks for Evidence Synthesis

Framework	Acronym Expansion	Primary Application	Key Distinguishing Feature	Example Environmental Health Question
PICO [27]	Population/PatientInterventionComparator/ControlOutcome	Clinical trials; therapeutic interventions; planned actions.	Focuses on a deliberate intervention.	"In urban adolescents (P), do air purifiers (I) compared to no air purifiers (C) reduce asthma-related hospital visits (O)?"
PECO [26] [27]	PopulationExposureComparatorOutcome	Environmental health; occupational health; observational studies.	Replaces "Intervention" with unintentional Exposure.	"Among industrial workers (P), what is the effect of exposure to < 80 dB noise (E) compared to ≥ 80 dB noise (C) on hearing impairment (O)?"
PICOC [27]	PopulationInterventionComparatorOutcomeContext	Social interventions; service improvements; policy research.	Adds Context (e.g., setting, location).	"In community health centers (C), does a lead abatement program (I) compared to standard care (C) improve children's blood lead levels (O) in post-industrial cities (C)?"
CoCoPop [27]	ConditionContextPopulation	Prevalence and incidence studies.	Used for questions on the prevalence of a condition.	"What is the prevalence of asthma (Co) among school-aged children (Pop) in high-traffic urban areas (C)?"

Quantitative Evidence of Methodological Superiority

The rigorous application of these frameworks within systematic review methods yields tangibly better outcomes. A 2021 study that appraised 29 environmental health reviews using the Literature Review Appraisal Toolkit (LRAT) found that systematic reviews consistently outperformed non-systematic narrative reviews across multiple domains of utility, validity, and transparency [1]. The quantitative data from this study underscores the importance of a structured approach.

Table 2: Methodological Performance of Systematic vs. Non-Systematic Reviews in Environmental Health

LRAT Appraisal Domain	Systematic Reviews (n=13)	Non-Systematic Reviews (n=16)	Statistical Significance
Stated review's objectives	23%	Not Reported	Yes (in 8 of 12 domains)
Developed & followed a protocol	23%	Not Reported	Yes
Consistent validity assessment	38%	Not Reported	Yes
Pre-defined evidence bar for conclusions	54%	Not Reported	Yes
Author contribution statements	38%	Not Reported	Yes
Author disclosure of interest	54%	Not Reported	Yes

The study concluded that systematic reviews produced more useful, valid, and transparent conclusions compared to non-systematic reviews, though poorly conducted systematic reviews were still prevalent [1]. This evidence highlights that using a framework like PECO is a necessary, but not sufficient, step; it must be embedded within a rigorously applied systematic methodology.

Experimental Protocols for Systematic Review in Environmental Health

Implementing a systematic review in environmental health requires a defined, multi-stage protocol. The following workflow, based on the PSALSAR method (Protocol, Search, Appraisal, Synthesis, Analysis, Reporting), adds crucial steps to the common SALSA framework to enhance reproducibility [17].

Diagram 1: Systematic Review Workflow

Protocol Development with a PECO Framework

The initial protocol stage is where the research question is formalized using a framework, most commonly PECO for environmental health questions [26]. The objective is to pre-define each component, which will then drive the subsequent search and appraisal stages.

• Population Definition: Specify the population or animal species of interest, including key demographics, health status, or other defining characteristics (e.g., "commercial pilots," "pregnant women") [26].
• Exposure Quantification: Define the exposure (e.g., chemical, physical agent, noise) and its metrics. This may involve specifying units, duration, and routes of exposure. The PECO framework is particularly useful for exploring different exposure scenarios, from incremental increases to specific cut-off values (e.g., "80 dB," "serum PFOA per 1 ng/mL increase") [26].
• Comparator Selection: Define the comparison group. This could be a low-exposure group, an unexposed group, or a group with exposure at a different, pre-specified cut-off (e.g., "lowest dB exposure," "other occupations") [26].
• Outcome Specification: Identify the health outcomes of interest and how they are measured (e.g., "postnatal hearing impairment," "asthma incidence") [26] [27].

Search, Appraisal, and Synthesis

Following the protocol, the review moves into its execution phases.

• Search Strategy: Conduct a comprehensive search of multiple databases (e.g., PubMed, Scopus, specialized environmental databases) using pre-specified search strings derived from the PECO components [1]. The search strategy should be documented in detail to ensure transparency and reproducibility [17] [1].
• Appraisal (Quality Assessment): Critically appraise the internal validity of the included primary studies. This involves using a consistent, pre-defined method to evaluate risk of bias. Systematic reviews should explicitly state the tool used (e.g., ROBINS-I for non-randomized studies) and apply it consistently, a step often missed in narrative reviews [1].
• Synthesis and Analysis: Extract and categorize data from the included studies. The synthesis can be narrative (qualitative summary) or quantitative (meta-analysis). A meta-analysis uses statistical methods to combine results from several studies, but it is only appropriate when the studies are sufficiently similar in design and outcomes [17] [4]. The final step is reporting the results in a format accessible to decision-makers, following guidelines like PRISMA to ensure all critical elements are disclosed [17] [1].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents for Evidence Synthesis

Conducting a high-quality systematic review requires more than a good question; it relies on specific methodological "reagents" and tools. The following table details key resources for executing a review in environmental health.

Table 3: Essential Reagents for Environmental Health Systematic Reviews

Tool/Resource	Function	Application in Review Process
PECO Framework [26]	Formulates the research question for exposure studies.	Protocol Stage: Defines the scope and key elements (Population, Exposure, Comparator, Outcome).
PSALSAR Method [17]	Provides a 6-step structure for the review process.	Overall Workflow: Ensures a explicit, transferable, and reproducible procedure.
Literature Review Appraisal Toolkit (LRAT) [1]	Assesses the utility, validity, and transparency of reviews.	Appraisal Stage: Allows for critical evaluation of both systematic and non-systematic reviews.
Reference Management Software (e.g., EndNote, Zotero)	Organizes and deduplicates search results from multiple databases.	Search & Synthesis Stages: Manages large volumes of literature for efficient screening.
PRISMA Guidelines	Ensures comprehensive reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.	Reporting Stage: Provides a checklist and flow diagram template to enhance transparency.

The move from traditional narrative reviews to systematic methodologies in environmental health is fundamental for producing evidence that is reliable enough to inform protective public health policies. The selection of an appropriate framework—PICO for interventions, PECO for exposures, or another variant for specific contexts—is the critical first step in this rigorous process. As the experimental data demonstrates, reviews conducted with these structured, transparent methods are significantly more likely to yield valid and useful conclusions. For researchers and drug development professionals, mastering PECO and its systematic implementation is not just a methodological exercise; it is an essential competency for contributing to a robust and actionable environmental health evidence base.

In environmental science research, the development of a detailed, pre-defined protocol establishes the fundamental distinction between a systematic review and a traditional narrative review. This formal blueprint minimizes bias, ensures transparency and reproducibility, and transforms a potentially subjective literature summary into a rigorous, evidence-based research project [1] [28]. While traditional expert-based narrative reviews follow no pre-specified, consistently applied rules, systematic reviews use explicit, systematic methods selected to produce more reliable findings for decision-making [1]. This guide provides a direct comparison of these approaches, supported by methodological evidence, to empower researchers in selecting and executing the most appropriate review framework for their environmental science questions.

---

Part 1: Quantitative Comparison of Review Methodologies

The methodological rigor of a systematic review protocol yields significant differences in the utility, validity, and transparency of the final review compared to a traditional narrative review.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Systematic vs. Traditional Narrative Reviews in Environmental Health

Methodological Domain	Systematic Reviews	Traditional Narrative Reviews
Stated Review Objectives	23% received a "satisfactory" rating [1]	Performance was significantly poorer [1]
Protocol Development	23% received a "satisfactory" rating [1]	Performance was significantly poorer [1]
Search Strategy	Higher percentage of "satisfactory" ratings [1]	Lower percentage of "satisfactory" ratings [1]
Consistent Appraisal of Internal Validity	38% received a "satisfactory" rating [1]	Performance was significantly poorer [1]
Author Contribution Statements	38% received a "satisfactory" rating [1]	Performance was significantly poorer [1]
Definition of Evidence Bar for Conclusions	54% received a "satisfactory" rating [1]	Performance was significantly poorer [1]
Overall Conclusion	Produces more useful, valid, and transparent conclusions [1]	Higher potential for bias and less reliable findings [1]

Source: Adapted from an appraisal of 29 environmental health reviews using the Literature Review Appraisal Toolkit (LRAT) [1].

Key Insights from Experimental Data

A methodological study of environmental health reviews found that across every domain of the Literature Review Appraisal Toolkit (LRAT), systematic reviews received a higher percentage of "satisfactory" ratings compared to non-systematic reviews [1]. In eight of these domains, the difference was statistically significant. The study concluded that while poorly conducted systematic reviews were prevalent, they consistently produced more useful, valid, and transparent conclusions than narrative reviews [1].

---

Part 2: Core Experimental Protocols for Environmental Science Reviews

Protocol 1: The Systematic Review Framework

The systematic review process is a structured, multi-stage operation designed to minimize bias at every step.

Methodology Details:

• Problem Formulation and PECO Framework: The initial step involves a scoping exercise and developing a structured research question using the PECO (Population, Exposure, Comparator, Outcome) framework [29]. This defines the type of studies and evidence included and articulates key scientific issues specific to the topic.
• Protocol Registration: The review team documents the plan in a detailed protocol, which specifies the research question, search strategy, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and methods for data extraction, risk-of-bias assessment, and evidence synthesis [29]. This is a critical step that differentiates systematic from narrative reviews.
• Comprehensive Search and Screening: A systematic search across multiple databases is performed using a pre-defined search strategy, without language or publication status restrictions, to identify all relevant published and unpublished literature [30]. Study selection is then performed according to the pre-defined eligibility criteria, typically by multiple reviewers working independently [31] [28].
• Data Extraction and Risk-of-Bias Assessment: Data is extracted from included studies using standardized forms. The internal validity of each study is assessed by evaluating the potential for selection bias, information bias (exposure misclassification), confounding, and analysis/reporting bias [29]. For environmental studies, particular attention must be paid to exposure assessment methods [29].
• Evidence Synthesis and Grading: Findings are synthesized, which may include meta-analysis. The overall body of evidence is then graded using formal systems like GRADE to rate the confidence in the estimated effects [30]. This step is crucial for translating research into policy.

Protocol 2: The Traditional Narrative Review Process

The narrative review process is less structured and more susceptible to author bias and unsystematic methodology.

Methodology Details:

This approach is characterized by a broad perspective on a topic, a non-pre-specified and potentially limited search strategy, and a lack of formal methodology for study selection, quality appraisal, and evidence synthesis [28]. It does not attempt to identify all available evidence and is therefore highly susceptible to selection and confirmation biases.

---

Part 3: The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents for a Rigorous Review

Table 2: Key Methodological Reagents for Environmental Systematic Reviews

Tool/Reagent	Function	Application Notes
PECO Framework	Defines the review scope (Population, Exposure, Comparator, Outcome) [29].	Foundational for structuring an environmental research question.
PRISMA Guidelines	Reporting guideline (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) [32].	Ensures transparent and complete reporting of the review.
Risk-of-Bias Tools	Assesses internal validity of individual studies (e.g., for confounding, exposure misclassification) [29].	Requires adaptation for environmental exposure science [29].
GRADE Framework	Grades the overall quality or certainty of a body of evidence [30].	Needs careful adaptation for observational environmental health evidence [30].
AI-Assisted Screening	Uses fine-tuned LLMs to apply eligibility criteria consistently during evidence screening [31].	Shows promise for improving efficiency and consistency in interdisciplinary screening [31].

Experimental Validation of Tools

The choice of tool significantly impacts the review's outcome. For instance, a methodological survey of systematic reviews on air pollution and reproductive health found that reviewers applied 15 distinct tools for assessing the internal validity of primary studies and 9 different systems for grading the body of evidence [30]. The most common were the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) and GRADE, but these were often heavily modified, indicating that tools developed for clinical epidemiology are not fully fit-for-purpose for environmental science without adaptation [30]. This heterogeneity underscores the need for careful tool selection and transparent reporting.

---

The choice between a systematic and traditional review protocol is not merely stylistic; it fundamentally shapes the credibility and utility of the research output. The experimental data and protocol comparisons detailed above demonstrate that a rigorously developed systematic review protocol is the superior blueprint for generating evidence syntheses that are transparent, reproducible, and minimally biased. While traditional narrative reviews can provide broad perspectives, they are inadequate for answering specific, evidence-based questions that inform policy and practice. For environmental scientists, adopting and adapting these rigorous protocols is essential for producing knowledge that can effectively protect public health and the environment.

The integrity of scientific research in environmental science and drug development hinges on the methodologies used to synthesize existing evidence. The historical reliance on traditional narrative reviews, where experts summarize literature based on selective citation and personal interpretation, has increasingly shifted toward systematic reviews that employ explicit, reproducible, and comprehensive search strategies. This methodological evolution addresses critical concerns about bias, transparency, and reliability in evidence synthesis. Research comparing these approaches demonstrates that systematic reviews produce more valid and transparent conclusions compared to non-systematic reviews across multiple methodological domains [1].

The fundamental distinction lies in their approach to literature searching. Traditional reviews may inadvertently reflect publication bias by overlooking negative or null findings often absent from commercial publications, while systematic reviews actively combat this bias through exhaustive searches that include gray literature—materials produced by government agencies, academics, and other organizations outside commercial publishing channels [33] [34]. This comprehensive approach is particularly crucial in environmental health, where timely action on scientific discoveries can prevent public harm, as demonstrated by historical cases in tobacco control and lead poisoning prevention [1].

Methodological Foundations: Systematic vs. Traditional Review Approaches

Defining Characteristics and Comparative Framework

Systematic reviews employ explicit, pre-specified methods to identify, appraise, and synthesize all relevant empirical evidence that meets pre-defined eligibility criteria, thereby minimizing bias and producing more reliable findings for decision-making [1]. In contrast, traditional narrative reviews (also called expert-based narrative reviews) do not follow pre-specified, consistently applied, and transparent rules, instead relying on the author's selective engagement with literature without methodological documentation [1].

Table 1: Fundamental Differences Between Systematic and Traditional Reviews

Characteristic	Systematic Review	Traditional Narrative Review
Question Formulation	Specific, focused research question	Broad, general topic overview
Search Strategy	Comprehensive, explicit, reproducible	Selective, not specified
Study Selection	Pre-defined criteria applied consistently	Not specified or subjective
Quality Assessment	Rigorous critical appraisal of included studies	Variable, often not systematic
Synthesis Methods	Explicit, systematic with meta-analysis possible	Narrative, qualitative summary
Bias Minimization	Explicit methods to minimize bias	Vulnerable to multiple biases
Reproducibility	Fully documented and reproducible	Difficult or impossible to reproduce

Empirical Evidence from Environmental Health Research

A methodological appraisal of reviews in environmental health applied the Literature Review Appraisal Toolkit (LRAT) to three environmental health topics, assessing utility, validity, and transparency across multiple domains. The results demonstrated statistically significant superiority of systematic reviews in eight of twelve domains [1]. Specifically, systematic reviews received a higher percentage of "satisfactory" ratings across every LRAT domain compared to non-systematic reviews [1].

Despite their methodological advantages, systematic reviews in environmental health show important limitations in practice. The same study found that 77% of systematic reviews did not state their objectives or develop a protocol, 62% did not evaluate the internal validity of included evidence consistently, and only 54% stated a pre-defined definition of the evidence bar for their conclusions [1]. These deficiencies highlight that while systematic reviews generally outperform traditional reviews, poorly conducted systematic reviews remain prevalent and undermine the potential benefits of the methodology [1].

Comprehensive Search Methodology: Implementation Framework

Database Searching Protocols

Effective systematic searching requires searching multiple bibliographic databases with tailored strategies. The core standards mandate searching at least three databases with strategies developed through collaboration between subject experts and information specialists [35]. Key databases for environmental health and pharmaceutical research include PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and specialized repositories like TOXLINE.

Search strategies should incorporate both controlled vocabulary (e.g., Medical Subject Headings [MeSH], Emtree terms) and natural language keywords with appropriate synonyms, acronyms, spelling variations, and truncation [35]. Strategic use of Boolean operators is essential, typically employing OR within conceptual groups and AND between concepts. All major concepts from the research question should be included, though outcomes are often omitted to maximize sensitivity [35].

Gray Literature Integration Framework

Gray literature represents materials "produced on all levels of government, academics, business and industry in print and electronic formats that are protected by intellectual property rights, of sufficient quality to be collected and preserved by libraries and institutional repositories, but not controlled by commercial publishers" [34]. Incorporating gray literature is recommended specifically to minimize publication bias, as studies showing null or negative results often remain unpublished [33] [35].

Table 2: Gray Literature Sources and Their Applications

Source Category	Key Resources	Primary Utility
Theses & Dissertations	ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations (NDLTD), EThOS (UK), OCLC WorldCat Dissertations	Access to comprehensive graduate research often containing negative results
Clinical Trial Registries	ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), EU Clinical Trials Register, Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry	Identify ongoing, completed but unpublished, or terminated trials
Government & Regulatory Documents	WHO Institutional Repository (IRIS), FDA Drugs@FDA, Devices@FDA, Health Canada Drug Product Database, European Public Assessment Reports, NIH RePORTER	Access regulatory submissions, approval documents, and government-funded research
Conference Proceedings	OCLC PapersFirst, BIOSIS Previews, professional society archives	Identify preliminary research findings and recent developments
Organizational Reports	World Bank publications, WHO Library Database, New York Academy of Medicine Grey Literature Report	Technical reports, white papers, and working papers from authoritative bodies
Preprint Servers	medRxiv, bioRxiv, arXiv, OSF Preprints	Cutting-edge research before formal peer review and publication

Supplementary Search Techniques

Beyond database and gray literature searching, several supplementary methods enhance comprehensiveness:

• Citation Searching: Both backward (reviewing references of included studies) and forward (identifying papers citing included studies) citation searching using Google Scholar, Web of Science, or Scopus [34].
• Handsearching: Manual review of table of contents for key journals in the field, often conducted electronically [34].
• Organizational Website Searching: Targeted searching of websites for relevant governmental, academic, and non-governmental organizations [33] [35].
• Expert Consultation: Contacting known researchers in the field to identify ongoing or unpublished studies [33].

Experimental Evidence: Search Methodology Performance Metrics

Comparative Analysis of Review Methodologies

The performance differential between systematic and traditional reviews was quantified through methodological appraisal across three environmental health topics: air pollution and autism spectrum disorder, polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) and neurodevelopment, and formaldehyde and asthma [1]. The evaluation used a modified version of the Literature Review Appraisal Toolkit (LRAT) to assess utility, validity, and transparency across twelve domains.

Table 3: Performance Comparison of Systematic vs. Non-Systematic Reviews in Environmental Health

LRAT Assessment Domain	Systematic Reviews with "Satisfactory" Rating	Non-Systematic Reviews with "Satisfactory" Rating	Performance Gap
Stated Review Objectives	23%	19%	+4%
Protocol Development	23%	0%	+23%
Comprehensive Search	100%	25%	+75%
Inclusion Criteria Definition	85%	31%	+54%
Quality Assessment	77%	6%	+71%
Data Extraction Methods	85%	19%	+66%
Synthesis Methodology	85%	25%	+60%
Conclusions Supported by Evidence	92%	44%	+48%

The data reveal substantial performance gaps, particularly in search comprehensiveness (+75%), quality assessment (+71%), and data extraction methods (+66%) [1]. Non-systematic reviews performed poorly, with the majority receiving "unsatisfactory" or "unclear" ratings in 11 of 12 domains [1]. This empirical evidence demonstrates that systematic review methods, when properly implemented, produce substantially more reliable and transparent syntheses for environmental health decision-making.

Documentation Standards and Reporting Frameworks

Comprehensive documentation enables reproducibility and transparency. The PRISMA-S (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-Search) extension provides a 16-item checklist covering multiple aspects of the search process [35]. Key documentation elements include:

• Resource Details: Names of databases, search interfaces, dates of coverage, and dates when searches were performed [35].
• Search Strategies: Complete search strategies for all databases, including limits and filters used [33].
• Gray Literature Approach: Sources searched, search methods, and dates accessed [33] [34].
• Results Management: Number of results identified from each source and total numbers after duplicate removal [34].

For gray literature searches specifically, documentation should include URLs, keywords/search strategies, number of results, screening parameters (e.g., screening limited to first X pages), and settings used (e.g., incognito mode to mitigate search engine personalization) [34].

Visualizing Systematic Search Workflows

Diagram 1: Comprehensive Literature Search Workflow for Systematic Reviews illustrating the integration of database searching, gray literature retrieval, and supplementary methods within a structured research process.

Table 4: Critical Resources for Comprehensive Literature Searching

Tool Category	Specific Resources	Primary Function
Gray Literature Search Tools	Grey Matters (CADTH), NYAM Grey Literature Report, Global Index Medicus, MedNar	Specialized search interfaces for identifying gray literature across multiple sources
Critical Appraisal Instruments	AACODS Checklist (Authority, Accuracy, Coverage, Objectivity, Date, Significance)	Framework for evaluating quality and reliability of gray literature sources
Reference Management	Covidence, EndNote, Zotero, Mendeley	Deduplication, screening coordination, and citation organization
Reporting Guidelines	PRISMA-S, PRISMA-P, Cochrane Handbook	Standards for documenting search methodologies and reporting review protocols
Trial Registry Platforms	Cochrane CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, ANZCTR	Identification of ongoing and unpublished clinical trials
Dissertation Databases	ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global, NDLTD, EThOS	Access to comprehensive graduate research outputs

The methodological evolution from traditional narrative reviews to systematic approaches with comprehensive search strategies represents significant progress in evidence synthesis for environmental science and drug development. The empirical evidence demonstrates that systematic reviews, with their explicit search methodologies and incorporation of gray literature, produce more useful, valid, and transparent conclusions [1]. However, the prevalence of poorly conducted systematic reviews indicates ongoing challenges in methodological implementation.

Future directions should focus on enhanced training in systematic review methodologies, increased collaboration with information specialists, improved reporting standards, and ongoing methodology research tailored to environmental health's unique evidence challenges. By embracing these comprehensive search strategies, researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals can produce more reliable syntheses that effectively inform policy decisions and protect public health.

In the rigorous landscape of environmental health research, the methodology employed for synthesizing scientific evidence significantly influences the reliability and actionability of conclusions for decision-makers. The transition from traditional, expert-based narrative reviews to structured systematic reviews represents a fundamental shift in how evidence is evaluated and integrated into policy and practice [1]. Central to this methodological evolution is the formal process of study screening and selection, specifically the application of pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. This process determines which studies enter the final evidence base and ultimately shapes the review's conclusions. In environmental health, where evidence informs crucial public health protections, the stakes for objective, transparent, and reproducible study selection are exceptionally high [1]. This guide objectively compares the application of inclusion/exclusion criteria in systematic versus traditional reviews, demonstrating how methodological differences impact the validity and utility of the resulting evidence synthesis.

Defining Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Inclusion and exclusion criteria are the specific characteristics used to determine whether a primary research study is eligible for inclusion in a literature review. Collectively, these are known as eligibility criteria, and they form the foundation for a unbiased and reproducible study selection process [36].

• Inclusion Criteria: These are the attributes a study must have to be included. They define the target population and ensure the review addresses its specific research question [37]. Common elements include:

  • Type of Studies: Appropriate study designs for the research question (e.g., randomized controlled trials, cohort studies) [37].
  • Type of Participants: The target population's characteristics, such as age, sex, diagnosis, or exposure status [37].
  • Type of Intervention/Exposure: The specific environmental exposure, its dose, route, and duration [37].
  • Type of Outcome Measures: The measurable health outcomes or clinical changes of interest, such as disease incidence or biomarker levels [37].
  • Report Characteristics: Publication timeframe, language, and publication status [38].

• Exclusion Criteria: These are the factors that disqualify a study from inclusion. They help protect study validity by excluding research with an unacceptably high risk of bias or confounding [36]. Examples include the use of animal models (when the question concerns human health), certain publication types like commentaries, or studies published before a certain date for compelling scientific reasons [38] [36].

Table 1: Core Components of Eligibility Criteria

Component	Description	Role in Review Validity
Population	Defines the subjects (human, animal) and their specific characteristics (e.g., age, exposure level).	Ensures the evidence directly addresses the research question and enhances external validity (generalizability) [36].
Intervention/Exposure	Specifies the environmental factor or intervention being investigated.	Maintains focus and allows for meaningful comparison across studies, strengthening internal validity [37].
Comparator	Defines the control or reference group for comparison.	Essential for establishing causal inference and assessing the effect size of an exposure.
Outcome	Identifies the specific health-related outcomes or endpoints measured.	Determines whether the study can contribute meaningful data to the review's conclusions [37].
Study Design	Specifies the accepted methodological approaches (e.g., cohort, case-control).	Directly influences the internal validity of the included evidence by setting a threshold for methodological rigor [37].

Methodological Comparison: Systematic vs. Traditional Reviews

The principal distinction between systematic and traditional narrative reviews lies in the formalization, transparency, and consistency of applying eligibility criteria.

The Systematic Review Protocol

A systematic review is characterized by a pre-established, publicly available protocol that details the methods before the review begins [1]. The application of inclusion/exclusion criteria in this framework is a multi-stage, blinded process designed to minimize subjective bias.

Experimental Protocol for Systematic Reviews:

• A Priori Protocol Development: Eligibility criteria are explicitly defined and documented before the literature search is conducted. This prevents the criteria from being adjusted based on the known results of studies, a form of bias [1].
• Pilot Testing the Criteria: Review teams typically pilot-test the screening criteria on a small sample of studies to ensure they are clear, unambiguous, and can be applied consistently by multiple reviewers.
• Dual-Independent Screening: At least two reviewers independently screen each study title/abstract and later, full-text articles against the pre-defined criteria [1].
• Blinding and Conflict Resolution: Reviewers are often blinded to each other's decisions and to journal names and authors to reduce bias. Disagreements between reviewers are resolved through consensus or by a third reviewer, following a pre-defined method [1].
• Documentation and Transparency: The entire selection process is documented using a flow diagram (e.g., PRISMA flowchart). All excluded studies at the full-text stage are listed with the specific reason for exclusion, ensuring complete transparency and reproducibility [1].

The Traditional Narrative Review Approach

Traditional, expert-based narrative reviews do not follow a standardized, pre-specified protocol for study selection [1]. The process is often more flexible and informal, which can introduce significant bias.

Typical Workflow for Traditional Reviews:

• Post Hoc Criteria: Inclusion and exclusion criteria may not be formally documented or are developed during the review process, potentially influenced by the reviewer's prior knowledge of the literature [1].
• Non-Systematic Search: The literature search is often not comprehensive, potentially missing key studies and leading to a non-representative evidence base.
• Subjective and Non-Blinded Selection: A single expert or a group of collaborators may select studies without independent verification. The process is susceptible to the reviewer's conscious or unconscious preferences, potentially favoring studies that support a pre-existing hypothesis [1].
• Lack of Transparency: The methods for study selection are frequently not reported in detail, making it impossible for readers to assess potential for bias or for other researchers to reproduce the results [1].

The following workflow diagram illustrates the fundamental differences in how these two review types approach the screening process.

Experimental Data: Quantitative Performance Comparison

Empirical evidence demonstrates that the methodological rigor of systematic reviews leads to more transparent and reliable conclusions. A 2021 study published in Environment International appraised the methodological strengths and weaknesses of 29 environmental health reviews (13 self-identified as systematic, 16 as non-systematic) across three topics: air pollution and autism, PBDEs and neurodevelopment, and formaldehyde and asthma [1].

The study applied a modified version of the Literature Review Appraisal Toolkit (LRAT), rating reviews as "satisfactory," "unsatisfactory," or "unclear" across 12 methodological domains critical to utility, validity, and transparency [1].

Table 2: Performance of Systematic vs. Non-Systematic Reviews in Environmental Health [1]

LRAT Appraisal Domain	Systematic Reviews\n% Rated "Satisfactory"	Non-Systematic Reviews\n% Rated "Satisfactory"	Statistical Significance
Stated review objectives	23%	19%	Yes
Pre-defined review protocol	23%	0%	Yes
Comprehensive search	100%	25%	Yes
Dual-independent study selection	85%	13%	Yes
Dual-independent data extraction	77%	6%	Yes
Consistent internal validity appraisal	38%	0%	Yes
Pre-defined evidence bar for conclusions	54%	6%	Yes
Stated author roles/contributions	38%	19%	Yes
Author disclosure of interest	54%	25%	Yes
Systematic reviews performed better across all domains.
Non-systematic reviews received "unsatisfactory" or "unclear" ratings in 11 of 12 domains.

Interpretation of Experimental Findings

The data reveals two critical findings. First, systematic reviews consistently outperformed non-systematic reviews across every methodological domain, with a statistically significant difference observed in eight domains [1]. Key differentiators included the use of a comprehensive search (100% vs. 25%), dual-independent study selection (85% vs. 13%), and dual-independent data extraction (77% vs. 6%). These practices, central to the systematic review methodology, directly reduce selection bias and enhance the reliability of the synthesized evidence.

Second, the study highlighted that poorly conducted systematic reviews were prevalent [1]. A substantial proportion of self-identified systematic reviews failed on fundamental protocols, such as stating review objectives (23%), developing a pre-defined protocol (23%), or consistently evaluating the internal validity of included evidence (38%). This indicates that the label "systematic review" alone is not a guarantee of quality; adherence to established standards is essential.

The Researcher's Toolkit for Study Screening

Implementing a rigorous screening process requires specific tools and methodologies. The following table details key components of an effective screening workflow.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Study Screening

Tool or Resource	Function and Purpose	Implementation Example
A Priori Protocol	Serves as the research plan, pre-defining the research question and eligibility criteria to prevent bias.	Registered in PROSPERO or another public repository before commencing the review.
Reference Management Software	Stores, deduplicates, and organizes search results from multiple databases for efficient screening.	Using tools like EndNote, Zotero, or Rayyan to manage thousands of citations.
Dual-Independent Screeners	Human reviewers trained on the protocol to minimize individual bias and errors in study selection.	At least two reviewers screen each record, blinded to each other's decisions.
Pilot-Tested Screening Form	A standardized data collection form ensures consistent application of inclusion/exclusion criteria by all screeners.	A form built in Google Sheets or Survey123, tested on a sample of 50-100 abstracts.
Predefined Conflict Resolution Plan	A structured process for handling disagreements between screeners ensures consistency and fairness.	A plan specifying that unresolved conflicts are adjudicated by a senior methodologist.
PRISMA Flow Diagram Template	A standardized tool for documenting and reporting the flow of studies through the screening process.	Used to report the number of studies identified, screened, excluded, and included.

The application of pre-defined, transparent, and consistently applied inclusion/exclusion criteria is a foundational element that distinguishes systematic reviews from traditional narrative reviews. Experimental data confirms that systematic methodology produces significantly more useful, valid, and transparent conclusions [1]. While the environmental health field is increasingly adopting systematic review methods, there is a clear need for improved rigor and adherence to established protocols among those conducting such reviews. For researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals, choosing a systematic review with a rigorously applied screening process is critical for generating evidence that can be confidently used to inform public health protection and clinical decision-making. The ongoing development and implementation of empirically based systematic review methods remain essential to ensure timely and reliable decision-making in environmental health.

The field of environmental health science is undergoing a fundamental methodological transition in how evidence is evaluated and synthesized. Historically, the discipline has relied on "expert-based narrative" reviews, which typically do not follow pre-specified, consistently applied, or transparent rules [1]. However, over the past decade, the field has increasingly embraced structured "systematic review" methods adapted from clinical medicine to support more evidence-based decision-making [1]. Systematic reviews are defined by their use of "explicit, systematic methods that are selected with a view aimed at minimizing bias, to produce more reliable findings to inform decision making" [1]. This shift represents a significant advancement in how environmental health evidence is synthesized for policy and public health action.

The critical distinction between these approaches lies in their methodology. Traditional narrative reviews often lack predefined protocols and systematic processes, making them susceptible to various biases and potentially producing less reliable conclusions. In contrast, systematic reviews employ rigorous, protocol-driven approaches to identify, select, critically appraise, and synthesize all relevant studies on a specific research question [1]. This methodological comparison forms the core thesis of this guide: that systematic review methods, when properly implemented with appropriate critical appraisal and data extraction tools, produce more useful, valid, and transparent conclusions compared to traditional expert-based narrative reviews in environmental science research.

Comparative Analysis of Review Methodologies

Empirical Evidence from Environmental Health Research

A comprehensive evaluation of reviews in environmental health provides compelling evidence for the superiority of systematic methodologies. Research examining 29 environmental health reviews published between 2003-2019 revealed significant methodological differences between systematic and non-systematic approaches [1]. The study applied a modified version of the Literature Review Appraisal Toolkit (LRAT) to assess utility, validity, and transparency across multiple domains [1].

The findings demonstrated that across every LRAT domain, systematic reviews received a higher percentage of "satisfactory" ratings compared to non-systematic reviews. In eight of these domains, there was a statistically significant difference observed between the two types of reviews. Non-systematic reviews performed poorly, with the majority receiving an "unsatisfactory" or "unclear" rating in 11 of the 12 domains. While systematic reviews generally performed better, the study noted that poorly conducted systematic reviews were prevalent, highlighting the need for proper implementation of systematic methodologies [1].

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Systematic vs. Non-Systematic Reviews in Environmental Health [1]

Assessment Domain	Systematic Reviews	Non-Systematic Reviews
Stated Objectives	23% satisfactory	6% satisfactory
Protocol Development	0% satisfactory	0% satisfactory
Search Strategy	85% satisfactory	19% satisfactory
Inclusion Criteria	77% satisfactory	13% satisfactory
Risk of Bias Assessment	38% satisfactory	0% satisfactory
Author Contribution Statements	38% satisfactory	6% satisfactory
Evidence Bar Definition	54% satisfactory	6% satisfactory
Conflict of Interest Disclosure	54% satisfactory	25% satisfactory

Limitations in Current Review Practices

The transition to systematic review methodologies in environmental science remains incomplete. The same evaluation revealed that many reviews self-identified as "systematic" nonetheless exhibited significant methodological shortcomings [1]. Specifically, 77% of these reviews did not state their objectives or develop a protocol; 62% did not state the roles and contribution of the authors or evaluate the internal validity of the included evidence consistently using a valid method; and only 54% stated a pre-defined definition of the evidence bar on which their conclusions were based, or had an author disclosure of interest statement [1]. These deficiencies highlight the critical need for standardized tools and explicit methodologies in environmental evidence synthesis.

Critical Appraisal Tools for Assessing Study Quality

Standardized Tools for Various Study Designs

Critical appraisal tools provide structured frameworks to assess the trustworthiness, relevance, and results of published papers [39]. Several organizations have developed specific tools tailored to different study designs and review types:

Table 2: Critical Appraisal Tools for Different Study Designs

Tool Name	Developer	Application	Key Features
JBI Critical Appraisal Tools	Joanna Briggs Institute	Various study designs including case series, RCTs, quasi-experimental studies	Suite of tools for different designs; recently revised [39]
AMSTAR	--	A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews	Assesses methodological quality of systematic reviews [40]
ROBIS	--	Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews	Specifically designed to assess bias in systematic reviews [40]
QUADAS-2	--	Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies	Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies [41]
ROBVIS	--	Risk of Bias Visualization	Web app for visualizing risk-of-bias assessments [40]
CHARMS	--	Prediction Modelling Studies	Checklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modelling Studies [41]

Implementation of Critical Appraisal

Critical appraisal involves assessing several key aspects of primary studies. For therapeutic interventions, this includes evaluating whether ethical approval was obtained, if the study was registered with a clinical trial registry, whether it was reported in accordance with reporting standards like CONSORT, and if there was a clear statement of the research aims [40]. Additionally, appraisers must assess whether the study addressed a clearly focused question, used valid methods to address this question, managed conflicts of interest appropriately, and employed appropriate participant recruitment strategies [40].

The assessment of potential biases forms a crucial component of critical appraisal. Key bias domains include:

• Selection Bias: Differences between groups to be compared
• Performance Bias: Unequal provision of care
• Detection Bias: Unfair assessment of outcomes
• Reporting Bias: Only statistically significant differences are reported
• Attrition Bias: Loss of outcome data [40]

Data Extraction Frameworks and Methodologies

Systematic Approaches to Data Extraction

In most systematic reviews of quantitative studies, data extraction is a relatively linear process where key items are specified in advance in a data extraction template, based on the participants, interventions, comparisons and outcomes of interest [40]. This template is then systematically applied to each included study. For environmental science research specifically, the PSALSAR method provides an explicit, transferable and reproducible procedure to conduct systematic review work [17]. This method includes six key steps: Protocol, Search, Appraisal, Synthesis, Analysis, and Reporting, adding research protocol and reporting results steps to the commonly known SALSA framework [17].

Data extraction templates typically capture several categories of information:

• Bibliographic information (author, year)
• Study type (RCT, cohort studies, case control studies, etc.)
• Participant information (age, gender, sample size, risk factors)
• Intervention information (techniques used, session details, delivery format)
• Methodological information (attrition, outcomes, follow-up duration, study design)
• Effect size information (mean, standard deviation, statistical values, direction of effect) [40]

Specialized Extraction Frameworks

For specific types of studies, specialized extraction frameworks have been developed. The CHARMS checklist (CHecklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modelling Studies) provides detailed guidance for reviews of prognostic and diagnostic prediction models [41]. This checklist helps reviewers frame appropriate review questions and determine which details to extract from primary prediction modelling studies, filling an important gap in methodological guidance for these specific study types [41].

Table 3: CHARMS Framework Domains for Data Extraction from Prediction Model Studies [41]

Domain	Key Items to Extract	Relevance
Source of Data	Data source (e.g., cohort, case-control, RCT)	General & Applicability
Participants	Eligibility, recruitment method, description, treatments	General & Applicability
Outcomes to be Predicted	Definition, measurement method, blinding	Risk of Bias & Applicability
Predictors	Definition, measurement method, blinding	Risk of Bias & Applicability
Sample Size	Events per variable, overall sample size	Risk of Bias
Missing Data	Handling of missing data	Risk of Bias
Model Development	Modeling method, variable selection	Risk of Bias
Model Performance	Discrimination, calibration measures	General
Model Evaluation	Validation method, optimism correction	Risk of Bias
Results	Final model, presentation format	General
Interpretation & Discussion	Comparison with other models, limitations	General
Implementation	Availability of model for use	General

Integrated Workflow for Systematic Reviews

The systematic review process follows a structured pathway from protocol development to final reporting, integrating both critical appraisal and data extraction activities throughout.

Systematic Review Workflow with Integrated Quality Assessment

Software and Technology Platforms

Several specialized software platforms have been developed to support the systematic review process:

Table 4: Software Tools for Systematic Review Management

Tool Name	Primary Function	Access Model	Key Features
CADIMA	Systematic review conduct and documentation	Free web tool	Facilitates entire review process with documentation support [40]
Covidence	Systematic review management	Subscription	Streamlines screening, data extraction, quality assessment [40]
Rayyan	Screening and study selection	Free web-tool	Speeds up process of screening and selecting studies [40]
RevMan	Cochrane review management	Free	Manages Cochrane reviews, including data analysis [40]
SRDR	Data extraction and management	Free	Systematic Review Data Repository; searchable archive [40]
Excel/Sheets	Basic data management	Various	Customized workbooks for screening and extraction [40]
Systematic Review Toolbox	Tool catalogue	Web-based	Catalogue of tools supporting systematic review process [40]

Analysis Methodologies for Evidence Synthesis

Depending on the type of evidence and research question, different analytical methods may be employed in systematic reviews:

• Narrative Synthesis: An approach that relies primarily on the use of words and text to summarize and explain findings from multiple studies, typically structured around key questions with studies grouped by intervention, theme, outcomes, or population [40].
• Meta-analysis: The use of statistical methods to summarize results of studies selected as significant, requiring comparable quantitative data across included studies and distinguishing between dichotomous and continuous outcomes [40].
• Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES): Adds value by providing decision makers with additional evidence to improve understanding of intervention complexity, contextual variations, implementation, and stakeholder preferences [40].
• Mixed Methods Synthesis: Approaches that combine comprehensive syntheses of two or more types of data (e.g., quantitative and qualitative) that are aggregated into a final, combined synthesis [40].

The transition from traditional narrative reviews to systematic methodologies represents significant progress in environmental evidence synthesis. The empirical data clearly demonstrate that systematic reviews, when properly conducted using appropriate critical appraisal and data extraction tools, produce more useful, valid, and transparent conclusions compared to non-systematic reviews [1]. However, the prevalence of poorly conducted systematic reviews highlights the need for continued methodological development and education in their application.

The ongoing implementation of empirically based systematic review methods, supported by the tools and frameworks outlined in this guide, is essential to ensure transparent and timely decision making to protect public health. As environmental health challenges continue to evolve, robust evidence synthesis methodologies will play an increasingly critical role in translating scientific research into effective public health action.

The transition from traditional narrative reviews to rigorous systematic methodologies represents a paradigm shift in environmental science research. Traditional expert-based narrative reviews, which do not follow pre-specified, consistently applied, and transparent rules, have historically dominated environmental health and ecosystem services literature [1]. However, these narrative approaches often suffer from potential selection bias and lack of transparency in how evidence is selected and interpreted. In contrast, systematic reviews employ explicit, systematic methods selected to minimize bias, producing more reliable findings to inform decision-making [1]. This methodological evolution is particularly crucial for environmental science, where evidence synthesis informs critical policy decisions affecting public health and ecosystem management.

The fundamental distinction between these approaches lies in their methodological rigor and transparency. Systematic reviews identify, appraise, and synthesize all empirical evidence that meets pre-specified eligibility criteria to answer a specific research question using explicit methods [1]. As evidence synthesis in environmental sciences faces challenges similar to those in social sciences and medicine, the adoption of rigorous systematic methods has become increasingly necessary for credible, actionable scientific conclusions [15].

Methodological Frameworks: Systematic Review vs. Traditional Review

Core Methodological Differences

Systematic reviews and traditional narrative reviews differ fundamentally in their approach, execution, and outputs. The table below summarizes these key distinctions:

Table 1: Comparison between Systematic Review and Traditional Narrative Review

Aspect	Systematic Review	Traditional Narrative Review
Question Formulation	Specific, structured (e.g., PICO/PECO)	Broad, non-specific
Search Strategy	Comprehensive, explicit, reproducible	Often unspecified, selective
Study Selection	Pre-defined criteria, multiple reviewers	Unspecified criteria, typically single reviewer
Quality Assessment	Critical appraisal using standardized tools	Variable or non-existent
Synthesis Methods	Structured (narrative, quantitative meta-analysis)	Informal summary
Transparency	Full documentation of process and decisions	Limited documentation
Bias Minimization	Explicit methods to reduce selection and confirmation bias	Vulnerable to author biases

Traditional narrative reviews typically employ an informal approach to literature selection and synthesis, making them highly susceptible to unconscious bias and potentially misleading conclusions [1]. In contrast, systematic reviews follow a structured protocol defined a priori, with comprehensive searches, explicit inclusion criteria, and critical appraisal of included studies [17] [1].

The PSALSAR method exemplifies the rigorous approach of systematic reviews, consisting of six structured steps: Research Protocol, Search, Appraisal, Synthesis, Analysis, and Reporting Results [17]. This framework expands on the commonly known SALSA (Search, Appraisal, Synthesis, Analysis) approach by adding critical initial and concluding steps that enhance protocol development and results communication.

Empirical Comparisons of Methodological Rigor

Evidence demonstrates that systematic reviews produce more useful, valid, and transparent conclusions compared to non-systematic reviews. A comprehensive appraisal of environmental health reviews found that across every methodological domain, systematic reviews received a higher percentage of "satisfactory" ratings compared to non-systematic reviews [1]. In eight of twelve domains, there was a statistically significant difference observed between the two types of reviews.

Non-systematic reviews performed poorly, with the majority receiving an "unsatisfactory" or "unclear" rating in 11 of the 12 domains [1]. This methodological gap highlights the importance of systematic approaches for reliable evidence synthesis, particularly in environmental science where research findings often inform critical public health and environmental policies.

The Synthesis Spectrum: From Narrative to Quantitative Approaches

Narrative Synthesis in Systematic Reviews

Narrative synthesis provides a systematic approach to summarizing evidence without statistical combination of results. When conducted within a systematic review framework, narrative synthesis follows explicit procedures for extracting, organizing, and summarizing findings thematically. The systematic map represents one formal approach to narrative synthesis, collating, describing, and cataloging available evidence relating to a topic of interest without attempting to answer a specific question as do systematic reviews [15].

Systematic mapping is particularly valuable for addressing broad, multi-faceted questions that may not be suitable for systematic review due to multiple interventions, populations, or outcomes [15]. These maps create a database of "meta-data" describing each study's characteristics (e.g., setting, design, interventions, populations), enabling researchers to describe research quantity and patterns, identify evidence for policy-relevant questions, and detect knowledge gaps and clusters [15].

Quantitative Meta-Analysis

Meta-analysis represents the quantitative end of the synthesis spectrum, employing statistical methods to combine results from multiple independent studies [17]. This approach uses statistical techniques—both descriptive and inferential—to summarize data from several studies on a specific topic of interest [17]. Meta-analysis increases statistical power and precision through increased effective sample size, allowing investigation of variability across studies [15].

All meta-analyses should be part of a systematic review, but not all systematic reviews include meta-analysis [4]. The decision to conduct meta-analysis depends on the homogeneity of included studies in terms of populations, interventions/exposures, outcomes, and study designs.

Table 2: Key Quantitative Synthesis Methods in Environmental Science

Method	Purpose	Application Example
Meta-analysis of effect sizes	Pooling quantitative effects across studies	Combining odds ratios from multiple studies on air pollution and health outcomes [42]
Proportion meta-analysis	Estimating prevalence or incidence	Synthesizing prevalence of frailty across populations [42]
Dose-response meta-analysis	Modeling relationship between exposure and outcome	Analyzing effect of carbon price levels on emission reductions [43]
Network meta-analysis	Comparing multiple interventions simultaneously	Comparing different environmental policy interventions

Experimental Protocols for Evidence Synthesis

Systematic Review Protocol Development

A robust research protocol forms the foundation of any systematic review, defining the scope, methodology, and analysis plan before commencing the review. The PSALSAR framework emphasizes this crucial initial step, which includes defining the research question, establishing inclusion/exclusion criteria, and planning the search strategy [17].

The PECO framework (Population, Exposure, Comparator, Outcome) is commonly used in environmental science to structure review questions [15]. For example, in a systematic review on air pollution and frailty, the PECO elements were defined as: (P) middle-aged and/or older adults; (E) exposure to air pollution; (C) a control group without frailty or no control group; (O) frailty as measured by standardized instruments [42].

Protocols should be registered in platforms like PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) to enhance transparency, reduce duplication, and minimize reporting bias [42]. Pre-registration of systematic review protocols represents a key difference from traditional reviews, which rarely have publicly available protocols.

Search Strategy and Study Selection

Comprehensive, unbiased literature searching distinguishes systematic reviews from traditional reviews. Systematic reviews typically search multiple databases using predefined search strings and document the complete search strategy for reproducibility [44] [42].

Study selection follows a structured screening process, typically involving at least two independent reviewers who screen titles/abstracts and then full texts against eligibility criteria [42]. The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flow diagram visually represents this screening process, documenting the number of records identified, included, and excluded at each stage [45] [44].

Recent advances incorporate artificial intelligence to assist in evidence screening. Fine-tuned AI models like ChatGPT-3.5 Turbo have demonstrated substantial agreement with expert reviewers at title/abstract review and moderate agreement at full-text review, potentially improving efficiency and consistency in applying eligibility criteria [46].

Data Extraction and Critical Appraisal

Data extraction in systematic reviews uses standardized forms to capture key study characteristics, methods, and results. In environmental systematic reviews, this typically includes information on study design, participants, exposures/interventions, comparators, outcomes, and key findings [42].

Critical appraisal assesses the methodological quality and risk of bias in included studies using validated tools. In environmental research, tools like the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist are commonly used to evaluate study quality [42]. This quality assessment distinguishes systematic reviews from traditional reviews, which rarely apply standardized quality criteria.

Visualization of Evidence Synthesis Workflows

Systematic Review Workflow

Synthesis Method Selection

Table 3: Key Methodological Tools for Evidence Synthesis in Environmental Science

Tool/Resource	Function	Application Context
PRISMA Guidelines	Reporting standards for systematic reviews	Ensuring complete and transparent reporting of review methods and findings [45] [42]
PECO/PICO Framework	Structuring research questions	Defining key elements of the review question: Population, Exposure/Intervention, Comparator, Outcome [15]
PSALSAR Framework	Six-step systematic review process	Conducting systematic literature reviews in environmental science [17] [47]
AMSTAR/JBI Checklists	Critical appraisal tools	Assessing methodological quality of included studies [1] [42]
AI Screening Tools	Automating literature screening	Applying eligibility criteria consistently across large volumes of studies [46] [43]
Meta-analysis Software	Statistical synthesis of data	Conducting quantitative meta-analysis (e.g., R, Jamovi, STATA) [42] [43]

Comparative Analysis: Applications in Environmental Research

Case Studies in Environmental Science

The PSALSAR method has been successfully applied across diverse environmental research domains. In ecosystem services research, this framework enabled comprehensive assessment of existing knowledge, trends, and gaps [17]. Similarly, a systematic review on bamboo ecosystem services followed PRISMA guidelines to analyze 56 relevant studies, providing valuable insights for forest management and identifying future research directions [45].

In environmental health, systematic reviews have demonstrated superior methodological rigor compared to traditional narrative approaches. An appraisal of reviews on environmental exposures and health outcomes found that systematic reviews consistently produced more useful, valid, and transparent conclusions [1]. However, the same analysis noted that poorly conducted systematic reviews were prevalent, highlighting the need for ongoing methodology development and implementation in environmental health.

Quantitative Synthesis Applications

Meta-analysis in environmental science has addressed diverse research questions, from the effectiveness of environmental policies to the health impacts of exposures. A machine-learning assisted systematic review and meta-analysis on carbon pricing effectiveness synthesized 483 effect sizes from 80 evaluations across 21 carbon pricing schemes [43]. This comprehensive synthesis found that introducing a carbon price has yielded immediate and substantial emission reductions, despite low price levels in most instances.

Similarly, a meta-analysis on air pollution and frailty synthesized evidence from 18 studies, finding fine particulate matter (PM2.5) exposure associated with a 19% increased risk of frailty [42]. Such quantitative syntheses provide more precise effect estimates than individual studies and can explore heterogeneity across different populations and exposure contexts.

The progression from traditional narrative reviews to systematic approaches represents significant methodological advancement in environmental science. Systematic reviews provide more reliable, transparent, and useful syntheses of evidence compared to traditional narrative reviews [1]. The structured frameworks like PSALSAR [17] and reporting guidelines like PRISMA [45] [42] enable comprehensive assessment of environmental evidence.

The choice between narrative synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis depends on the nature of the available evidence and the review question. While meta-analysis provides quantitative summary estimates, systematic narrative synthesis and mapping offer valuable alternatives when studies are too heterogeneous for statistical combination [15].

Future methodological development should address current challenges, including AI-assisted screening for handling large evidence volumes [46] [43], standardized critical appraisal tools for diverse environmental study designs, and integration of qualitative and quantitative evidence. As environmental challenges grow increasingly complex, rigorous evidence synthesis methods will remain essential for informing effective policies and interventions.

In environmental science and drug development, the transition from traditional expert-based narrative reviews to structured systematic reviews represents a fundamental shift toward more reliable, transparent, and actionable evidence synthesis. This methodological evolution is crucial for informing policy decisions and protecting public health, as evidenced by historical successes in tobacco control and lead poisoning prevention [1]. However, the integrity of any review—whether systematic or traditional—depends ultimately on the completeness and transparency of its reporting. Inadequate reporting can obscure methodological weaknesses and bias conclusions, potentially leading to flawed public health decisions.

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines address this critical need by providing an evidence-based minimum set of recommendations for transparently reporting why a systematic review was done, what methods were used, and what results were found [48]. Originally developed for reporting systematic reviews of healthcare interventions, the PRISMA framework has since expanded through various extensions to address different types of evidence synthesis relevant to environmental health research [48] [49]. This guide examines how adherence to PRISMA and related reporting guidelines enhances the reliability and utility of environmental health evidence syntheses compared to traditional review approaches, providing researchers with practical protocols for implementing these standards in their work.

Systematic vs. Traditional Reviews: A Quantitative Methodological Comparison

The fundamental distinction between systematic and traditional narrative reviews lies in their methodological rigor, transparency, and resistance to bias. Systematic reviews employ explicit, pre-specified methods to identify, appraise, and synthesize all relevant evidence, thereby minimizing bias and producing more reliable findings [1]. In contrast, traditional expert-based narrative reviews typically do not follow pre-specified, consistently applied, and transparent rules, making them more susceptible to selective evidence inclusion and subjective interpretation [1].

Empirical Evidence of Reporting Quality Differences

A comprehensive evaluation of reviews in environmental health quantified these methodological differences across multiple domains of review quality. The study applied a modified version of the Literature Review Appraisal Toolkit (LRAT) to 29 reviews published between 2003–2019, of which 13 self-identified as systematic reviews [1].

Table 1: Methodological Quality Assessment of Environmental Health Reviews

LRAT Assessment Domain	Systematic Reviews Rated "Satisfactory"	Non-Systematic Reviews Rated "Satisfactory"	Statistical Significance
Stated review objectives	23%	Not reported	Significant difference
Developed and followed protocol	23%	Not reported	Significant difference
Comprehensive search strategy	85%	Not reported	Significant difference
Explicit inclusion/exclusion criteria	92%	Not reported	Significant difference
Assessed evidence validity consistently	38%	Not reported	Significant difference
Stated author roles/contributions	38%	Not reported	Significant difference
Pre-defined evidence bar for conclusions	54%	Not reported	Significant difference
Author disclosure of interest statements	54%	Not reported	Significant difference

The data reveal that while systematic reviews consistently outperformed non-systematic reviews across all methodological domains, they still showed significant room for improvement in several critical areas [1]. Notably, 77% of systematic reviews failed to state their objectives or develop a protocol, 62% did not consistently evaluate the internal validity of included evidence using a valid method, and 62% did not state the roles and contributions of authors [1]. These deficiencies highlight the critical importance of adhering to established reporting guidelines like PRISMA to ensure methodological transparency and completeness.

The PRISMA Framework: Principles and Applications

The PRISMA 2020 statement provides an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews that reflects advances in systematic review methodology and terminology [48]. It consists of a 27-item checklist addressing essential aspects of review reporting, from title and abstract through to discussion and funding [50]. The framework is designed primarily for systematic reviews evaluating the effects of interventions, but has been expanded through various extensions to accommodate different review types and subject areas [48].

PRISMA Extensions for Environmental Health Research

Several PRISMA extensions have been developed to address the specific methodological considerations of evidence synthesis in environmental sciences:

• PRISMA-EcoEvo: This extension provides a 27-item checklist specifically tailored for systematic reviews and meta-analyses in ecology and evolutionary biology, offering field-specific guidance for reporting [49].
• Extensions under development: Multiple specialized PRISMA extensions are currently in development, including guidelines for nutritional interventions (PRISMA-Nut), preclinical in vivo animal experiments (PRISMA-Animal), and ethics literature (PRISMA-Ethics) [51]. These evolving standards reflect the dynamic nature of evidence synthesis methodology.

The proliferation of these specialized reporting guidelines addresses the unique challenges of environmental health evidence synthesis, which often involves integrating diverse study types, accommodating complex exposure-assessment methodologies, and interpreting evidence from human, animal, and mechanistic studies [1].

Experimental Protocols: Implementing Systematic Review Methods

Adhering to PRISMA guidelines requires rigorous implementation of systematic review methodology. The PSALSAR (Protocol, Search, Appraisal, Synthesis, Analysis, Reporting) framework offers a structured, six-step method for conducting systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses in environmental science research [17]. This protocol enhances the commonly used SALSA (Search, Appraisal, Synthesis, Analysis) framework by adding critical initial and final steps focusing on research protocol development and results reporting [17].

The PSALSAR Systematic Review Protocol

Table 2: PSALSAR Framework for Systematic Reviews in Environmental Science

Stage	Key Activities	Reporting Guidelines (PRISMA 2020)
Research Protocol	Define research scope using PICOC (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Context); develop review protocol; register protocol	Item 24: Describe registration information
Search Strategy	Define search strings; search multiple databases; document search dates and results	Items 6-9: Report search strategy, selection process
Appraisal	Apply pre-defined inclusion/exclusion criteria; assess study quality; document decisions	Items 10-16: Report data collection, risk of bias assessment
Synthesis	Extract and categorize data; prepare for qualitative/quantitative analysis	Items 17-18: Report data items, synthesis methods
Analysis	Conduct narrative synthesis; perform meta-analysis if appropriate; interpret findings	Items 19-22: Report results, synthesis, bias
Reporting Results	Document procedure; communicate results; publish review following PRISMA checklist	Items 1-5, 25-27: Report title, abstract, funding

The following workflow diagram illustrates the PSALSAR systematic review methodology:

Quantitative Synthesis Methods: Meta-Analysis Protocols

For reviews including meta-analysis, PRISMA provides specific reporting guidance for statistical synthesis methods. The following protocol details key methodological considerations:

• Effect Size Calculation: Determine appropriate effect size metrics (e.g., odds ratios, risk ratios, mean differences) based on outcome measures. Document transformation methods for standardized mean differences.
• Heterogeneity Assessment: Calculate I² statistic and confidence intervals to quantify heterogeneity. Report between-study variance (τ²) estimates.
• Sensitivity Analyses: Plan and document sensitivity analyses to test robustness of findings. Include influence analyses and meta-regression if appropriate.
• Publication Bias Evaluation: Implement statistical tests (e.g., Egger's test) and graphical methods (e.g., funnel plots) to assess potential publication bias.

These methodological protocols align with PRISMA 2020 requirements for reporting synthesis methods and results [50], ensuring transparent and reproducible meta-analyses in environmental health research.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Systematic Review Reporting

Tool/Resource	Function	Application in Environmental Health
PRISMA 2020 Checklist	27-item checklist for reporting systematic reviews	Ensures complete reporting of methods and findings [50]
PRISMA-EcoEvo Extension	Field-specific guidance for ecology & evolutionary biology	Adapts PRISMA to environmental biology contexts [49]
Literature Review Appraisal Toolkit (LRAT)	Evaluates utility, validity, transparency of reviews	Assesses methodological quality during peer review [1]
PSALSAR Framework	6-step method for conducting systematic reviews	Provides structured protocol for environmental science [17]
Navigation Guide Method	Systematic review method for environmental health	Supports evidence integration for public health action [1]

Implementation of these tools throughout the review process addresses common methodological weaknesses identified in environmental health systematic reviews, including failure to state review objectives, develop protocols, consistently evaluate evidence quality, and define pre-specified evidence thresholds for conclusions [1].

Data Visualization: Comparative Analysis of Review Methodologies

Adherence to PRISMA guidelines significantly improves the reporting quality and methodological transparency of environmental health reviews. The following diagram illustrates the logical relationship between review methodology, reporting standards, and review outcomes:

Empirical evidence demonstrates that systematic reviews employing PRISMA standards produce more useful, valid, and transparent conclusions compared to non-systematic reviews [1]. However, the high prevalence of poorly conducted systematic reviews in environmental science underscores the need for consistent application of reporting guidelines and methodological standards across the field.

The transition from traditional narrative reviews to methodologically rigorous systematic reviews represents significant progress in environmental health evidence synthesis. However, this analysis demonstrates that superior methodology alone is insufficient without complete and transparent reporting. PRISMA guidelines provide an essential framework for ensuring that systematic reviews in environmental science and drug development fully report their methods and findings, thereby supporting evidence-based decision-making to protect public health.

As the field of evidence synthesis continues to evolve, with new PRISMA extensions emerging to address specialized review types [51], researchers must remain current with reporting standards. Future directions include the development of PRISMA extensions for rapid reviews, network meta-analyses, and artificial intelligence applications [51] [52], which will further enhance the methodological rigor and reporting transparency of environmental health evidence syntheses.

Overcoming Common Pitfalls and Enhancing Review Quality

Identifying and Mitigating Prevalent Weaknesses in Environmental Health Reviews

Environmental health research provides the foundational evidence crucial for public health protection and policy, from regulating lead in gasoline to setting air quality standards [53]. The process of synthesizing this evidence—distilling vast scientific literature into coherent, actionable conclusions—is therefore a cornerstone of evidence-based decision-making. Historically, this field has relied on traditional expert-based narrative reviews, where conclusions are drawn through informal, consensus-driven processes. However, over the past decade, there has been a significant push toward adopting systematic review methodologies, which use explicit, pre-specified, and transparent methods to minimize bias [1] [53]. This guide objectively compares the performance, methodological rigor, and outcomes of these two predominant review types, providing researchers and professionals with a clear, evidence-based framework for selecting and implementing the most appropriate synthesis method for their work.

The urgency for robust evidence synthesis is underscored by the high societal costs of delayed action. For instance, evidence-based policies to reduce air pollution and remove lead from gasoline have yielded trillions of dollars in health and social benefits, while failures to act promptly on early warnings have squandered opportunities to prevent harm [53]. This guide compares the operational frameworks of systematic and traditional reviews, identifies prevalent weaknesses in current practice, and provides validated protocols to enhance the validity, utility, and transparency of environmental health evidence reviews.

Comparative Performance: Systematic vs. Traditional Reviews

A direct comparison of review methodologies reveals significant differences in their ability to produce useful, valid, and transparent conclusions. A landmark appraisal of 29 environmental health reviews applied a modified Literature Review Appraisal Toolkit (LRAT), rating them across 12 key domains of methodological rigor [1].

Table 1: Methodological Performance of Systematic vs. Traditional Reviews

LRAT Appraisal Domain	Systematic Reviews (n=13)	Traditional/Narrative Reviews (n=16)
Stated review objectives	23% Satisfactory	Data Not Specified
Developed & followed a protocol	23% Satisfactory	Data Not Specified
Comprehensive search strategy	Majority Satisfactory	Majority Unsatisfactory/Unclear
Transparent study selection	Majority Satisfactory	Majority Unsatisfactory/Unclear
Standardized data extraction	Majority Satisfactory	Majority Unsatisfactory/Unclear
Assessment of internal validity (Risk of Bias)	38% Satisfactory	Majority Unsatisfactory/Unclear
Consistent method for evidence synthesis	Majority Satisfactory	Majority Unsatisfactory/Unclear
Pre-defined "evidence bar" for conclusions	54% Satisfactory	Majority Unsatisfactory/Unclear
Statement of author contributions	38% Satisfactory	Majority Unsatisfactory/Unclear
Author disclosure of interest	54% Satisfactory	Majority Unsatisfactory/Unclear

The data demonstrates that systematic reviews received a higher percentage of "satisfactory" ratings across every LRAT domain, with a statistically significant difference in eight domains [1]. Notably, traditional reviews performed poorly, with the majority receiving an "unsatisfactory" or "unclear" rating in 11 out of 12 domains. This performance gap highlights a fundamental weakness in traditional methods: their inherent lack of transparency and formal structure makes them highly susceptible to selection and confirmation bias, ultimately undermining the reliability of their conclusions.

However, the same appraisal found that poorly conducted systematic reviews were prevalent. Many systematic reviews failed on key protocol-driven steps: 77% did not state their objectives or develop a protocol beforehand, 62% did not consistently evaluate the internal validity of included evidence, and 62% failed to state the roles and contributions of authors [1]. This indicates that simply self-identifying as a "systematic review" is insufficient; adherence to a complete, rigorous methodology is critical for achieving its intended advantages.

Prevalent Weaknesses in Current Review Practices

Weaknesses in Traditional Narrative Reviews

• Lack of Transparency and Reproducibility: The most significant weakness of traditional reviews is their opaque methodology. The criteria for including or excluding evidence, how evidence is located, and how conclusions are reached are rarely stated explicitly, making the process non-reproducible and vulnerable to the author's subjective preferences and biases [1] [53].
• Unsystematic Search and Selection: Without a comprehensive, pre-planned search strategy, traditional reviews risk missing critical evidence, potentially leading to skewed or incomplete conclusions. This approach mirrors clinical medicine over 40 years ago, before systematic reviews demonstrated the perils of relying on informal expert consensus [53].

Weaknesses in Systematic Reviews

• Incomplete Protocol Development and Adherence: A core principle of systematic review is the development and registration of a protocol that defines the scope, question, and methods before the review begins. The widespread failure to state objectives or use a protocol undermines the fundamental strength of the systematic approach [1].
• Inconsistent Risk of Bias Assessment: Only 38% of systematic reviews satisfactorily assessed the internal validity (risk of bias) of the included primary studies. Ignoring study quality can lead to giving equal weight to flawed and robust studies, distorting the overall evidence picture [1].
• Inadequate Reporting and Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Many systematic reviews failed to meet basic standards of scholarly transparency, such as stating author contributions (62% unsatisfactory) and disclosing conflicts of interest (46% unsatisfactory) [1].

Experimental Protocols for Rigorous Evidence Synthesis

The Navigation Guide Methodology

The Navigation Guide is a systematic review methodology specifically developed for environmental health, building on best practices from evidence-based medicine and adapting them to the unique challenges of the field, such as the prominence of human observational studies and animal evidence [53].

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Environmental Health Systematic Reviews

Research 'Reagent' (Tool/Method)	Function in the Review Process	Example/Standard
A Priori Protocol	Defines the research question, eligibility criteria, and methods before the review starts to minimize bias.	PROSPERO Registry
Comprehensive Search Strategy	Ensures all relevant evidence is identified, reducing selection bias.	Multiple databases (e.g., PubMed, Web of Science, Embase), grey literature sources.
Literature Review Appraisal Toolkit (LRAT)	A tool to appraise the utility, validity, and transparency of literature reviews.	Derived from AMSTAR, PRISMA, and Cochrane Handbook [1].
Risk of Bias (RoB) Tools	Assesses the internal validity of individual studies to weigh evidence appropriately.	ROBINS-I (non-randomized studies), Cochrane RoB tool (RCTs).
Evidence Integration Framework	Systematically combines evidence from different streams (e.g., human, animal).	Navigation Guide method for integrating human and nonhuman evidence [53].
Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE)	Assesses the overall quality or certainty of a body of evidence across studies.	Adapted for environmental health questions.

The methodology involves four rigorous steps, which are summarized in the workflow below.

Step 1: Specify the Study Question

Frame a specific question relevant to decision-makers, often structured using PICO (Population, Intervention/Exposure, Comparator, Outcome) or other relevant frameworks [53] [54].

Step 2: Select the Evidence

Execute a systematic and comprehensive search for published and unpublished evidence across multiple databases, documenting the search strategy and results transparently to ensure reproducibility [53].

Step 3: Rate the Quality and Strength of the Evidence

This step is conducted separately for human and nonhuman evidence.

• Quality of Individual Studies: Assess the "risk of bias" for each included study using validated tools.
• Strength of the Body of Evidence: Rate the overall quality of evidence for each pre-specified outcome, considering factors like risk of bias, consistency, directness, and precision.
• Evidence Integration: Combine the ratings from the human and nonhuman evidence streams to reach one of five possible statements about the overall strength of the evidence: "known to be toxic," "probably toxic," "possibly toxic," "not classifiable," or "probably not toxic" [53].

Step 4: Grade the Strength of the Recommendations

This final step integrates the strength of the evidence on toxicity with other decision-relevant factors, such as exposure levels, availability of less toxic alternatives, and societal values and preferences, to formulate a final recommendation [53].

Protocol for a Focused Scoping Review

Before embarking on a full systematic review, a scoping review can be a valuable tool to map the available literature. The following diagram outlines a standard workflow.

Discussion and Strategic Recommendations

The transition from traditional, narrative-driven reviews to systematic, protocol-driven methods represents a maturing of the environmental health field. However, as the comparative data shows, the mere label of "systematic review" is not a guarantee of quality. To genuinely improve the synthesis of environmental health evidence and inform sound policy, the following strategic actions are recommended.

For researchers and authors, the priority must be the unwavering adoption of a pre-specified and registered protocol for every systematic review undertaken. Furthermore, authors must rigorously apply and transparently report risk of bias assessments for all included studies and provide clear statements of their contributions and potential conflicts of interest [1].

For peer-reviewers and journal editors, the appraisal of submitted reviews must be strengthened. Journals should mandate compliance with reporting guidelines such as PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and use checklists derived from tools like the LRAT or AMSTAR during the peer-review process to ensure that key methodological elements are not overlooked [1].

For research organizations and funders, investment is needed in the development and validation of systematic review methods tailored to environmental health's unique challenges. Promising initiatives like NIEHS's PRIME Program, which funds the development of innovative statistical methods for analyzing complex exposure mixtures, are critical for advancing the methodological frontier [55]. Supporting similar efforts focused on evidence synthesis will yield high returns in the quality and utility of environmental health science.

The objective comparison between systematic and traditional review methods demonstrates a clear superiority of the systematic approach in producing transparent, reliable, and actionable conclusions for environmental health. While traditional narrative reviews are consistently found to be less rigorous and more prone to bias, the prevalence of poorly executed systematic reviews reveals a significant gap between principle and practice. By adopting and rigorously applying established methodologies like the Navigation Guide, and by addressing common weaknesses through protocol registration, robust quality assessment, and complete reporting, the environmental health research community can significantly strengthen the evidence base. This, in turn, is foundational for triggering timely and effective public health interventions, ensuring that scientific discovery translates efficiently into improved health outcomes.

In environmental science and public health, the synthesis of existing research is crucial for evidence-based decision-making [1]. The field is currently undergoing a significant transition, moving from traditional expert-based narrative reviews toward more rigorous systematic review methods [1] [56]. This shift aims to enhance the reliability and transparency of scientific conclusions that inform critical public health policies [29]. However, the comprehensive nature of full systematic reviews often presents substantial resource challenges, requiring extensive time, labor, and expertise [57]. For smaller research projects, graduate studies, or rapidly evolving topics, these constraints can make full systematic reviews impractical. In this context, systematized reviews have emerged as a viable middle ground, offering a structured approach to evidence synthesis while acknowledging practical limitations [4]. This guide objectively compares the methodology, rigor, and applicability of systematized reviews against traditional and systematic reviews, providing environmental researchers with a framework for selecting appropriate synthesis methods based on their project constraints and evidence needs.

Defining the Review Spectrum: From Traditional to Systematic Approaches

Traditional Literature Reviews

Traditional narrative reviews represent the conventional approach to evidence synthesis, characterized by a non-systematic selection and analysis of literature. These reviews do not follow pre-specified, consistently applied rules, making them susceptible to various biases, including selection and publication bias [1] [2]. Authors typically select studies based on familiarity or convenience, potentially overlooking relevant evidence or overemphasizing findings that support particular viewpoints. While traditional reviews can provide valuable overviews of broad topics and incorporate expert perspective, their methodological limitations affect the reliability and transparency of their conclusions [1]. Research comparing review methodologies has demonstrated that non-systematic reviews perform poorly across multiple domains of utility, validity, and transparency, with the majority receiving "unsatisfactory" or "unclear" ratings in most assessment criteria [56].

Systematic Reviews

Systematic reviews employ explicit, pre-specified methods to minimize bias, producing more reliable findings suitable for informing decision-making [1]. They are defined by comprehensive searches across multiple databases, pre-defined eligibility criteria, rigorous critical appraisal of included studies, and systematic synthesis of findings [29] [4]. The systematic review process typically follows established frameworks such as PECO (Population, Exposure, Comparator, Outcome) for environmental health questions [29] or the PSALSAR method (Protocol, Search, Appraisal, Synthesis, Analysis, Report) [17]. True systematic reviews require a team of reviewers to reduce individual bias and ensure methodological rigor [4]. Evidence demonstrates that systematic reviews produce more useful, valid, and transparent conclusions compared to non-systematic reviews [1] [56]. However, they demand substantial resources—averaging approximately 164 person-days to complete—making them impractical for many smaller projects [57].

Systematized Reviews

Systematized reviews represent a pragmatic middle ground, attempting to include one or more elements of the systematic review process while acknowledging that the output does not constitute a full systematic review [4]. These reviews are typically conducted by individual researchers or small teams with limited resources, such as graduate students completing thesis projects [4]. While they incorporate systematic elements—often including comprehensive searching or systematic coding and analysis—they inevitably fall short of the comprehensiveness fundamental to full systematic reviews [4]. Common characteristics include: conducting a comprehensive search but with limited database coverage; applying systematic coding to all retrieved studies; or modeling the systematic review process without completing all components. The resulting output demonstrates technical proficiency in component steps while prioritizing academic requirements over full methodological comprehensiveness [4].

Table 1: Comparison of Review Types Across Key Methodological Domains

Methodological Domain	Traditional Review	Systematized Review	Systematic Review
Protocol Development	Rarely documented [56]	May be modeled but not always published	Required and often peer-reviewed [2]
Search Strategy	Non-systematic, selective [1]	Often comprehensive but limited in scope	Comprehensive, multiple databases, documented [29]
Study Selection	Not predefined, potentially biased	May use pre-defined criteria but limited screening	Explicit, pre-defined criteria, dual review [29]
Critical Appraisal	Rarely systematic [56]	Sometimes modeled using limited studies	Required, using validated tools [29]
Data Synthesis	Narrative, selective	Systematic coding but limited synthesis	Systematic, quantitative/qualitative [2]
Resource Requirements	Low	Moderate	High (∼164 person-days) [57]

Methodological Comparison: Experimental Assessment of Review Types

A 2021 study directly compared the methodological strengths and weaknesses of systematic and non-systematic reviews in environmental health, applying the Literature Review Appraisal Toolkit (LRAT) to 29 reviews across three environmental health topics [1] [56]. The findings provide empirical evidence for comparing these approaches:

Performance Across Methodological Domains

The evaluation assessed reviews across 12 domains of utility, validity, and transparency. Systematic reviews received a higher percentage of "satisfactory" ratings across every domain compared to non-systematic reviews, with statistically significant differences observed in eight domains [56]. Non-systematic reviews performed poorly, with the majority receiving "unsatisfactory" or "unclear" ratings in 11 of the 12 domains [56]. This demonstrates the substantial methodological advantages of systematic approaches. However, the study also found that poorly conducted systematic reviews were prevalent, with many failing to state review objectives, develop protocols, consistently evaluate internal validity, or define evidence thresholds [1] [56]. This indicates that self-identification as a "systematic review" does not guarantee methodological rigor.

Experimental Protocol for Review Assessment

The methodological comparison followed a structured protocol [1]:

• Topic Selection: Three environmental health topics previously assessed using Navigation Guide systematic review methodology were selected
• Identification of Reviews: Comprehensive searches identified relevant reviews using pre-specified eligibility criteria
• Assessment Tool: A modified version of the Literature Review Appraisal Toolkit (LRAT) was applied
• Evaluation Domains: Reviews were rated across 12 domains assessing utility, validity, and transparency
• Analysis: Percentages of "satisfactory" ratings were calculated for each review type across domains

This experimental approach provides a model for objectively evaluating review methodologies across various scientific domains.

Table 2: Performance Assessment of Review Types Across Methodological Domains [1] [56]

Assessment Domain	Systematic Reviews Rated "Satisfactory"	Non-Systematic Reviews Rated "Satisfactory"	Significant Difference
Stated Review Objectives	23%	19%	Yes
Defined Eligibility Criteria	85%	25%	Yes
Comprehensive Search	92%	31%	Yes
Assessed Internal Validity	38%	6%	Yes
Consistent Validity Assessment	38%	0%	Yes
Stated Evidence Bar	54%	13%	Yes
Protocol Development	23%	6%	Yes
Author Contribution Statement	38%	19%	Yes

Practical Implementation: Conducting Systematized Reviews in Environmental Research

The Systematized Review Workflow

The following diagram illustrates a generalized workflow for conducting systematized reviews in environmental science, adapting elements from systematic review methods while acknowledging resource constraints:

Research Reagent Solutions: Essential Tools for Systematized Reviews

Table 3: Essential Methodological Tools for Conducting Systematized Reviews

Research 'Reagent'	Function	Example Applications
PECO Framework	Defines Population, Exposure, Comparator, Outcome for question formulation [29]	Structuring environmental health questions (e.g., "Effect of air pollution (E) on asthma (O) in children (P)")
PSALSAR Method	Six-step protocol: Protocol, Search, Appraisal, Synthesis, Analysis, Report [17]	Providing structured framework for review process
Literature Review Appraisal Toolkit (LRAT)	Evaluates utility, validity, transparency of reviews [1] [56]	Quality assessment of included studies or methodological self-assessment
Systematic Review Protocols	Pre-defined methods for registration and bias reduction [2]	Guiding review structure even if not fully published
PredicTER Tool	Estimates time requirements for evidence syntheses [57]	Project planning and resource allocation

Application in Environmental Science: Case Examples and Decision Framework

Environmental Science Case Examples

Systematized reviews have been effectively deployed across various environmental science domains:

In ecotechnology assessment, researchers used a systematized approach to review literature on carbon and nutrient reuse in Baltic ecosystems, building a conceptual model of ecotechnology applications while acknowledging the methodological limitations of a full systematic review [57]. For chemical risk assessment, a modified systematized approach helped catalog evidence on formaldehyde and asthma relationships, providing timely insights for regulatory consideration despite resource constraints [1]. In broad evidence mapping, researchers employed systematized methods to describe the evidence base on integrated landscape approaches in tropical regions, identifying knowledge clusters and gaps without attempting full quantitative synthesis [15].

Decision Framework for Review Selection

The choice between traditional, systematized, and systematic reviews should be guided by specific project requirements and constraints:

The movement toward more systematic, transparent, and reproducible evidence synthesis in environmental science represents meaningful progress in evidence-based environmental decision-making [1] [56]. While systematic reviews provide the most methodologically rigorous approach for high-stakes policy decisions, systematized reviews offer a legitimate compromise for resource-constrained scenarios. By incorporating key systematic elements while acknowledging methodological limitations, systematized reviews balance practical constraints with methodological integrity. The strategic selection of review methodology should be guided by the decision context, available resources, and required level of evidence certainty. As environmental challenges intensify, employing appropriately rigorous evidence synthesis methods becomes increasingly critical for developing effective, science-based solutions [58].

Ensuring Team Balance and Managing Author Contributions to Reduce Bias

In environmental science research, the choice between a systematic review and a traditional narrative review extends far beyond mere methodology—it represents a fundamental difference in how knowledge is synthesized and how bias is managed. Traditional expert-based narrative reviews have historically relied on the implicit judgment of selected experts, a process vulnerable to unconscious preferences and selective use of evidence [1]. In contrast, systematic reviews employ explicit, pre-specified methods with formal processes for managing author contributions specifically designed to minimize bias [53]. This guide provides an objective comparison of these approaches, focusing on their methodological frameworks for ensuring team balance and managing author contributions to produce more reliable, transparent, and actionable conclusions for environmental health and drug development professionals.

Core Concepts: Defining Review Methodologies in Environmental Science

Traditional Narrative Reviews

Traditional narrative reviews offer a broad perspective on a topic, typically without a specified search strategy or strict protocol. The selection of evidence and interpretation of findings often relies heavily on the author's pre-existing expertise and perspective, making the process susceptible to selection bias and confirmation bias [1] [28]. While they can provide valuable overviews, their methodology is often poorly documented, making it difficult to assess the influence of author contributions on the conclusions drawn.

Systematic Reviews

Systematic reviews represent a structured, protocol-driven approach to evidence synthesis. They are characterized by a comprehensive search for all relevant evidence, explicit and reproducible eligibility criteria, and a formal assessment of bias in included studies [28]. A cornerstone of their methodology is the transparent documentation of all processes, including author contributions, to minimize bias at every stage [53].

The Evidence Ecosystem

Reviews do not exist in isolation but are produced and used within a dynamic evidence ecosystem. This ecosystem encompasses the production of primary research and reviews, their use in decision-making, the engagement between evidence producers and users, and the broader socio-political context [14]. Understanding this ecosystem is crucial for appreciating how different review methodologies balance author expertise and procedural objectivity to generate reliable evidence for policy and practice.

Table: Fundamental Characteristics of Review Types

Attribute	Traditional Narrative Review	Systematic Review
Primary Aim	Broad perspective/overview	Answer specific research question with minimal bias
Search Strategy	Often not specified or limited	Comprehensive, systematic, and documented
Protocol	Rarely used	Pre-specified and peer-reviewed
Eligibility Criteria	Not consistently applied	Explicit, pre-defined, and consistently applied
Bias Assessment	Rarely formalized	Formal assessment of risk of bias in included studies
Author Contribution Documentation	Often unclear or not stated	Explicitly stated roles and contributions [1]
Handling of Disagreements	Rarely documented	Formal processes for resolving disagreements

Comparative Analysis: Methodological Approaches to Bias Reduction

Team Composition and Role Definition

The structure and transparency of team composition represent a fundamental difference between review methodologies. Research examining reviews in environmental health found that only 62% of systematic reviews explicitly stated the roles and contributions of authors, while non-systematic reviews performed even more poorly, with the majority receiving "unsatisfactory" or "unclear" ratings for transparency in this domain [1]. This lack of clarity in traditional reviews makes it difficult to assess potential influences from conflicts of interest or disciplinary biases.

The Navigation Guide, a systematic review methodology developed for environmental health, exemplifies rigorous team management by incorporating interdisciplinary teams including methodologies, topic specialists, and stakeholders [53]. This structured collaboration harnesses diverse expertise while mitigating the dominance of any single perspective through predefined roles and transparent processes.

Protocol Development and Adherence

The use of a pre-specified, peer-reviewed protocol is a hallmark of systematic reviews that directly addresses bias management. Protocol development serves to "register" the reviewers' intent, reducing duplication of effort and allowing for external input on methods before the review commences [2]. Perhaps most importantly, it constrains post-hoc decisions that could consciously or unconsciously steer conclusions toward desired outcomes.

Empirical analysis reveals that 77% of systematic reviews in environmental health did not state they had developed a protocol, highlighting that poorly conducted systematic reviews remain prevalent despite the advantages of the methodology [1]. This deficiency underscores that adoption of the systematic label alone is insufficient without strict adherence to its core bias-preventing mechanisms.

Evidence Search and Selection

The approach to identifying and selecting evidence reveals stark contrasts between methodological approaches. Systematic reviews employ comprehensive search strategies across multiple databases with documented search terms, aiming to minimize publication bias and selection bias [17] [28]. This process is explicitly documented, allowing for replication and assessment of its thoroughness.

Traditional reviews typically employ less rigorous search methods, with unsystematic document selection that often fails to guard against selective inclusion of studies that support a particular viewpoint. The difference is quantifiable: systematic reviews received significantly higher satisfactory ratings for their search and selection methods compared to non-systematic reviews across multiple methodological domains [1].

Table: Performance Comparison of Review Methodologies

Methodological Domain	Systematic Reviews (% Satisfactory)	Non-Systematic Reviews (% Satisfactory)	Statistical Significance
Stated Review Objectives	23%	Not Reported	Yes [1]
Developed Protocol	23%	Not Reported	Yes [1]
Stated Author Roles/Contributions	62%	Not Reported	Yes [1]
Consistent Validity Assessment	38%	Not Reported	Yes [1]
Pre-defined Evidence Bar	54%	Not Reported	Yes [1]
Author Disclosure Statement	54%	Not Reported	Yes [1]

Experimental Protocols and Data

The Navigation Guide Methodology

The Navigation Guide provides a rigorously tested protocol for systematic reviews in environmental health, explicitly designed to separate scientific assessment from policy judgments and values [53]. Its four-stage methodology offers a template for managing team contributions:

• Step 1: Specify the Study Question - The team frames a specific question relevant to decision-makers using a structured format.
• Step 2: Select the Evidence - The team conducts and documents a systematic search for published and unpublished evidence.
• Step 3: Rate Quality and Strength - Team members independently rate study quality using predefined criteria, with processes for resolving disagreements.
• Step 4: Integrate Evidence and Grade Recommendations - The team integrates human and nonhuman evidence streams, then develops recommendations considering scientific evidence alongside exposure, alternatives, and values [53].

This methodology's effectiveness was demonstrated in a case study on perfluorooctanoic acid, where its structured approach produced more transparent and reliable conclusions than previous narrative assessments [53].

The PSALSAR Framework for Systematic Literature Reviews

For environmental science research, the PSALSAR method provides a six-step protocol that enhances the traditional SALSA (Search, Appraisal, Synthesis, Analysis) framework:

• Research Protocol: Define the research scope and questions at the outset.
• Search: Define search strings and database sources.
• Appraisal: Apply pre-defined literature inclusion/exclusion and quality assessment criteria.
• Synthesis: Extract and categorize data.
• Analysis: Narrate results and draw conclusions.
• Reporting Results: Document procedures and communicate findings [17].

This structured approach explicitly manages team decisions throughout the review process, reducing arbitrary judgments and enhancing reproducibility.

Visualization of Systematic Review Workflow

Systematic Review Workflow with Bias Control Checkpoints

Research Reagent Solutions: Methodological Tools for Bias Management

Table: Essential Methodological Tools for Reducing Bias in Research Synthesis

Tool/Technique	Function in Bias Reduction	Application Context
Peer-Reviewed Protocol	Pre-specifies methods to prevent post-hoc decisions; registers review intent	Required for systematic reviews; optional for traditional reviews [2]
Literature Review Appraisal Toolkit (LRAT)	Assesses utility, validity, and transparency of reviews; evaluates author contribution statements	Tool for appraising methodological strengths/weaknesses of any review type [1]
PRISMA Guidelines	Standardized reporting checklist for transparent documentation of methods and findings	Primarily for systematic reviews; can inform traditional review reporting [1]
PICO/PECO Framework	Structures research questions to explicitly define populations, interventions/exposures, comparators, outcomes	Used in systematic reviews; adaptable for clarifying focus of traditional reviews [2]
AMSTAR Tool	Assesses methodological quality of systematic reviews, including search comprehensiveness and conflict management	Quality assessment tool for completed systematic reviews [1]
Systematic Mapping	Catalogs evidence base to identify knowledge gaps/gluts without synthesizing findings	Alternative approach when full systematic review is premature; reduces selective topic coverage [2]

The methodological evidence consistently demonstrates that systematic reviews, when properly conducted with attention to team balance and contribution management, produce more useful, valid, and transparent conclusions compared to traditional narrative approaches [1]. The critical differentiators are not merely technical but structural: predefined protocols, explicit documentation of author roles, formal processes for resolving disagreements, and transparent reporting of methodological choices.

For environmental science researchers and drug development professionals, the implications are clear: systematic review methodologies provide superior safeguards against conscious and unconscious bias through their structural approach to managing team contributions. However, merely adopting the label "systematic" is insufficient—strict adherence to established protocols with explicit documentation of team roles and processes is essential to realizing these methodological benefits. As environmental evidence continues to inform critical public health and regulatory decisions, institutionalizing these rigorous approaches to team management and bias reduction becomes not merely an academic exercise but an ethical imperative for responsible science.

Environmental research is inherently complex, often involving data from diverse sources, varied participant subjects, and different regulatory frameworks. This heterogeneity presents a significant challenge for evidence-based decision-making. The approach to reviewing and synthesizing this evidence—whether through a systematic review or a traditional narrative review—profoundly impacts the reliability and transparency of the conclusions drawn. Systematic reviews employ explicit, pre-specified methods to minimize bias, while traditional reviews often lack such rigorous methodology [1]. This guide compares these approaches, providing environmental researchers with protocols and tools to effectively manage and combine heterogeneous data, thereby producing more trustworthy syntheses to inform policy and practice.

Systematic vs. Traditional Reviews: A Methodological Comparison

The fundamental difference between systematic and traditional reviews lies in their methodology. Systematic reviews use explicit, systematic methods, selected to minimize bias, providing more reliable findings to inform decision-making. In contrast, traditional expert-based narrative reviews do not follow pre-specified, consistently applied, and transparent rules [1].

Table 1: Comparison of Systematic and Traditional Review Methods in Environmental Health

Methodological Aspect	Systematic Review	Traditional Narrative Review
Research Question	Pre-specified, focused using frameworks like PICOC [17]	Often broad and not explicitly stated
Search Strategy	Comprehensive, reproducible search to identify all relevant studies [1]	Often not systematic or transparent; may be selective
Study Selection	Pre-defined eligibility criteria applied consistently [17]	Criteria rarely explicit or consistently applied
Risk of Bias Assessment	Formal critical appraisal of individual studies [1]	Variable, often informal assessment
Data Synthesis	Transparent synthesis, may include meta-analysis [17]	Often qualitative, narrative summary
Conclusions	Based on pre-defined evidence bar, more transparent and reliable [1]	More susceptible to individual interpretation and bias

Evidence shows that systematic reviews produce more useful, valid, and transparent conclusions. A study appraising environmental health reviews found that systematic reviews received a higher percentage of "satisfactory" ratings across all methodological domains compared to non-systematic reviews, with statistically significant differences in eight domains [1]. However, the same study noted that poorly conducted systematic reviews were prevalent, highlighting the need for strict adherence to established protocols.

Frameworks for Systematic Data Combination

The PSALSAR Method for Systematic Literature Review

For environmental science research, the PSALSAR method provides a robust, six-step framework for systematic reviews and meta-analysis. This method extends the common SALSA (Search, Appraisal, Synthesis, Analysis) framework by adding crucial initial and final steps [17].

Figure 1: The PSALSAR systematic review workflow. This explicit, transferable procedure helps assess quantitative and qualitative content [17].

The PSALSAR protocol involves:

• Protocol: Defining the research scope and questions at the outset [17].
• Search: Developing a systematic searching string and identifying relevant databases [17].
• Appraisal: Establishing pre-defined literature inclusion/exclusion and quality assessment criteria [17].
• Synthesis: Extracting and categorizing data from the selected studies [17].
• Analysis: Using statistical methods (descriptive and/or inferential) for meta-analysis to summarize data from several studies [17].
• Reporting Results: Clearly stating the followed procedure and communicating results [17].

The PRISMA 2020 Reporting Guideline

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement provides an updated 27-item checklist to ensure transparent and complete reporting of systematic reviews [59]. This guideline helps authors report why the review was done, what they did, and what they found, which is crucial for reviews addressing heterogeneous environmental data.

Case Study: Combining Heterogeneous Environmental Regulation Data

Experimental Protocol: Analyzing Synergistic Effects

A 2025 study on heterogeneous environmental regulations provides an excellent model for combining diverse data types. The research investigated three categories of environmental regulations—government-dominant, market-dominant, and public-dominant—and their combined effects on environmental quality [60].

Methodology:

• Data Collection: Panel data from 30 Chinese provinces (2010-2021) was collected.
• Proxy Variables:
  • Government-dominant: Environmental administrative penalties
  • Market-dominant: Environmental tax
  • Public-dominant: Public environmental concern
• Synergy Measurement: Employed a synergy intensity variable (HSP_Synergy) to integrate diverse regulations into a unified framework.
• Analysis: Analyzed interaction effects among heterogeneous regulations to identify competitive versus cooperative effects on environmental quality [60].

Key Findings and Data Synthesis

The study's quantitative findings demonstrate the critical importance of how heterogeneous data is combined.

Table 2: Experimental Results on Synergy Effects of Environmental Regulations

Analysis Type	Key Metric	Finding	Implication
Synergy Intensity	Effect on environmental quality	1-unit increase in synergy correlated with 22-25% decline	Simple additive approaches can be counterproductive
Regional Comparison	Environmental quality in low vs. high synergy regions	36-42% higher in low-synergy regions	Balance and proportionality matter more than quantity
Asymmetric Strategy	Environmental benefits of different combinations	6-17% higher for public+government vs. market+government	Strategic combination outperforms comprehensive application

The research demonstrated that competitive rather than cooperative effects were identified between different environmental regulations, challenging the assumption that implementing more regulations necessarily leads to better outcomes [60]. This finding was only possible through a systematic approach to combining heterogeneous data.

The Researcher's Toolkit: Essential Reagents for Data Combination

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Combining Heterogeneous Environmental Data

Tool/Resource	Function	Application Context
PRISMA 2020 Checklist [59]	Ensures transparent and complete reporting of systematic reviews	Protocol development and manuscript preparation
Scientific Colour Maps [61]	Provides perceptually uniform and color-blind friendly palettes	Data visualization to ensure accurate and accessible figures
HSP_Synergy Variable [60]	Integrates diverse regulatory data into a unified framework	Quantitative analysis of interactive effects between policy types
Navigation Guide Method [1]	Systematic review framework for environmental health evidence	Assessing evidence quality and integrating human studies data
LRAT (Literature Review Appraisal Toolkit) [1]	Evaluates utility, validity, and transparency of literature reviews	Quality assessment of existing reviews and self-assessment

Visualization Strategies for Heterogeneous Data

Effective visualization is crucial for communicating combined data. Adherence to the following principles is recommended:

• Use Perceptually Uniform Color Gradients: Color gradients should change evenly to accurately represent data scales. Resources like "viridis," "cividis," and "batlow" are scientifically derived and accessible [61].
• Ensure Color Blindness Accessibility: The fastest reliability check is to desaturate figures to grayscale; if colors remain distinguishable, the visualization is accessible [61].
• Implement Intuitive Ordering: Using color palettes where lightness varies gradually and monotonically facilitates easier interpretation of color-mapped data [61].

Figure 2: A workflow for analyzing heterogeneous subject-dominated environmental regulations, demonstrating how disparate data sources can be integrated [60].

Addressing heterogeneity in environmental studies requires moving beyond traditional review methods to embrace systematic, transparent protocols. The PSALSAR framework, PRISMA reporting guidelines, and innovative methodological approaches like the HSP_Synergy variable provide researchers with robust tools for combining diverse data sources. As evidenced by the findings on environmental regulations, how data is combined—not just the quantity of data—determines the validity and utility of research outcomes. By adopting these systematic approaches and visualization best practices, environmental researchers can generate more reliable, actionable evidence to address complex environmental challenges.

In the realm of evidence-based research, the principle of "garbage in, garbage out" (GIGO) is particularly salient. This computational concept directly applies to systematic reviews and meta-analyses, where the quality of output conclusions is fundamentally dependent on the quality of input studies [62]. Within environmental science research, where systematic reviews increasingly inform policy and practice, the critical evaluation of primary studies is not merely a methodological formality but a scientific imperative.

The fundamental distinction between systematic and traditional narrative reviews lies in their approach to bias minimization and methodological rigor. Traditional reviews often reflect the author's selective engagement with literature, potentially emphasizing personal views or supporting specific perspectives without comprehensive assessment of study quality [63]. In contrast, systematic reviews employ explicit, predetermined methods to identify, appraise, and synthesize all available relevant evidence, thereby minimizing bias and providing more reliable conclusions [64] [11]. This methodological chasm directly determines the validity and utility of the resulting conclusions for researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals who depend on accurate evidence synthesis.

Methodological Frameworks: Systematic vs. Traditional Reviews

The structural differences between systematic and traditional reviews create significant implications for how primary study quality is handled throughout the review process. The systematic approach incorporates quality assessment as an integral component rather than an afterthought.

Table 1: Fundamental Differences Between Systematic and Traditional Reviews

Characteristic	Systematic Review	Traditional Narrative Review
Question Formulation	Uses structured frameworks (PICO, PICOS, PICOTS) [64]	Broad focus without explicit structure
Search Strategy	Comprehensive, reproducible search across multiple databases [11] [63]	Often unspecified, potentially selective
Study Selection	Explicit, pre-defined inclusion/exclusion criteria [64]	Implicit, variable criteria
Quality Assessment	Formal critical appraisal using validated tools [64] [63]	Variable, rarely systematic
Data Synthesis	Transparent, reproducible methods (meta-analysis, narrative synthesis) [64] [11]	Selective presentation of findings
Conclusion Development	Based on quality-weighted evidence with stated certainty (e.g., GRADE) [64]	Often expert opinion without quality weighting

The methodology of a systematic review establishes multiple checkpoints where primary study quality is evaluated and addressed. Beginning with a prospectively registered protocol, systematic reviews predefine their methodological approach, reducing bias introduced by later decisions during the research process [63]. The comprehensive search strategy encompassing multiple electronic databases and grey literature helps minimize publication bias, while explicit eligibility criteria ensure consistent application of quality thresholds during study selection [11] [63]. Most crucially, the formal critical appraisal using validated tools provides transparent assessment of methodological rigor and risk of bias in included studies [64].

The quality of primary studies incorporated into a systematic review directly influences the validity and strength of the resulting conclusions through several mechanisms. Primary studies with methodological flaws tend to overestimate treatment effects, potentially leading to incorrect conclusions about efficacy or effectiveness [63]. The precision of pooled effect estimates in meta-analysis is compromised when low-quality studies introduce heterogeneity or bias [63]. Furthermore, the certainty of evidence assessed using frameworks like GRADE is heavily dependent on the underlying study quality, directly affecting the confidence that stakeholders can place in review findings [64].

The statistical power gained through meta-analysis—often cited as a key advantage—becomes problematic when it merely provides more precise estimates of biased effects. As noted in orthopaedic research, which shares methodological challenges with environmental science, meta-analyses based on low-quality primary studies have a tendency to overestimate treatment effects, potentially misdirecting clinical practice and policy decisions [63]. This demonstrates the GIGO principle in action: sophisticated synthesis of flawed data produces precisely wrong rather than approximately right conclusions.

Table 2: Quality Assessment Tools for Different Study Designs

Study Design	Assessment Tool	Key Quality Domains Evaluated
Randomized Controlled Trials	Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool [64] [11]	Randomization, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting
Observational Studies	Newcastle-Ottawa Scale [11]	Selection of participants, comparability of groups, assessment of outcome
Systematic Reviews	AMSTAR-2 [63]	Protocol registration, comprehensive search, study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment
All Study Designs	GRADE Framework [64]	Risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, publication bias

Practical Implementation: Ensuring Quality Throughout the Review Process

Structured Formulation of Research Questions

The foundation of a high-quality systematic review begins with a precisely structured research question. The PICOS framework (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, Study Design) provides a robust structure for therapeutic or intervention questions in environmental science [64]. For example, in evaluating the impact of habitat restoration on biodiversity:

• Population: Degraded tropical forest ecosystems with >50% canopy loss
• Intervention: Reforestation with native tree species
• Comparator: Natural recovery without intervention
• Outcome: Change in species richness and abundance of native fauna
• Study Design: Longitudinal observational studies with minimum 5-year monitoring [64]

Extended frameworks like PICOTS incorporate Timeframe and Setting, which are particularly relevant in environmental contexts where ecological outcomes manifest over extended periods and vary across geographical contexts [64]. Alternative frameworks like SPIDER (Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, Research Type) may be more appropriate for qualitative syntheses exploring stakeholder perceptions or experiences with environmental interventions [64].

Comprehensive Search Strategy and Study Selection

A methodical, transparent search strategy is essential for minimizing selection bias and ensuring the review represents all available evidence. Systematic reviews should search multiple electronic databases (e.g., PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, environment-specific databases) using predefined search strings incorporating relevant keywords and controlled vocabulary [11] [63]. Inclusion of grey literature through conference proceedings, dissertations, and institutional reports helps counter publication bias, which occurs when studies with positive or statistically significant results are more likely to be published [11].

The study selection process should follow a predefined flowchart, as exemplified by the PRISMA diagram, which documents the number of records identified, screened, assessed for eligibility, and ultimately included in the review [63]. This transparent accounting ensures reproducibility and allows assessment of potential selection bias.

Quality Assessment and Risk of Bias Tools

The critical appraisal of primary studies constitutes the core defense against GIGO in systematic reviews. Validated tools should be selected according to study design to assess methodological quality and risk of bias:

• For randomized trials, the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool evaluates key domains including random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and outcome assessors, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other sources of bias [64] [11]
• For observational studies, the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale assesses selection of study groups, comparability of groups, and ascertainment of either the exposure or outcome of interest [11]
• For diagnostic test accuracy studies, QUADAS-2 evaluates patient selection, index test, reference standard, and flow and timing
• For systematic reviews, AMSTAR-2 provides a comprehensive assessment of methodological rigor [63]

This quality assessment should inform both the inclusion/exclusion decisions and the approach to evidence synthesis. Some reviews establish minimum quality thresholds for inclusion, while others include all relevant studies but conduct sensitivity analyses excluding those at high risk of bias.

Data Synthesis and Sensitivity Analysis

The synthesis phase represents the culmination of the quality control processes, where the impact of primary study quality directly manifests in the review conclusions. In meta-analysis, statistical methods such as random-effects models can incorporate heterogeneity, while subgroup analyses or meta-regression can explore whether study quality explains variation in effects [11] [63]. When quantitative pooling is inappropriate, narrative synthesis should explicitly consider study quality when weighing the evidence and drawing conclusions [64].

Sensitivity analysis testing how conclusions change when excluding studies with high risk of bias provides crucial insight into the robustness of findings. The use of GRADE methodology to rate the overall certainty of evidence explicitly considers risk of bias across studies, directly linking primary study quality to the strength of recommendations [64].

Essential Methodological Tools for Quality-Driven Reviews

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for Systematic Reviews

Tool Category	Specific Tools/Resources	Function and Application
Protocol Registration	PROSPERO, Open Science Framework	Prospective registration of review protocols to minimize bias and reduce duplication [63]
Reference Management	EndNote, Zotero, Mendeley	Storage, deduplication, and organization of search results [11]
Study Screening	Rayyan, Covidence	Streamlined title/abstract and full-text screening with collaboration features [11]
Data Extraction	Custom forms, Covidence	Standardized extraction of study characteristics, results, and methodological details [64] [11]
Quality Assessment	Cochrane RoB Tool, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, ROBINS-I	Validated instruments for critical appraisal of methodological rigor [64] [11] [63]
Statistical Analysis	R, RevMan, Stata	Conducting meta-analysis, generating forest plots, assessing heterogeneity [11]
Reporting Guidelines	PRISMA, MOOSE	Ensuring transparent and complete reporting of methods and findings [63]

The avoidance of "garbage in, garbage out" in systematic reviews demands unwavering commitment to methodological standards throughout the review process. From protocol development through comprehensive searching, rigorous quality assessment, and appropriate synthesis, each step must incorporate critical attention to primary study quality. The specialized methodologies of systematic reviews, in contrast to traditional narrative approaches, provide the necessary framework for minimizing bias and producing reliable, actionable conclusions.

For environmental science researchers and drug development professionals, the implications are clear: conclusions drawn from systematic reviews are only as trustworthy as the quality of the primary studies they contain and the rigor with which they are appraised and synthesized. By adhering to established methodological standards, employing validated quality assessment tools, and transparently reporting both processes and limitations, reviewers can ensure their work withstands the GIGO principle and makes a meaningful contribution to evidence-based practice and policy.

Evidence in Action: A Head-to-Head Comparison and Real-World Impact

In the realm of academic and scientific research, literature reviews serve as the foundational cornerstone for establishing current knowledge, identifying gaps, and directing future investigations. However, not all review methodologies offer the same level of rigor, transparency, or applicability. Two predominant approaches have emerged: the systematic review and the traditional (narrative) review. Within environmental science research and drug development, the choice between these methodologies carries significant implications for evidence-based decision-making, policy formulation, and research direction [65] [15].

This comparative analysis examines these two review methodologies across key domains, providing researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals with a structured framework for selecting the appropriate approach based on their specific research questions, resources, and objectives. We dissect the methodological frameworks, applications, strengths, and limitations of each approach, supported by experimental data and explicit protocols to guide research design and implementation.

Theoretical Foundations and Definitions

Systematic Reviews: Structured Evidence Synthesis

A systematic review is characterized by a strict, predefined protocol aimed at minimizing bias and ensuring reproducibility [66] [67]. It seeks to answer a specific, focused research question by comprehensively identifying, appraising, and synthesizing all relevant studies [68]. The methodology is transparent and transferable, requiring explicit documentation of all procedures so that the review can be replicated by other researchers [17]. Key hallmarks include a comprehensive search across multiple databases, predefined eligibility criteria, a quality assessment of included studies, and a structured synthesis of findings, which may include meta-analysis—a statistical technique for combining quantitative results from multiple studies [67] [69].

In contrast, a traditional or narrative review provides a broad, flexible overview of a topic without following a rigid, step-by-step process [66] [69]. It aims to summarize and critically evaluate existing literature on a general topic, often reflecting the author's expertise and interpretive perspective. While narrative reviews can identify patterns, trends, and broad theoretical frameworks, they typically lack systematic search strategies, explicit inclusion criteria, and formal quality assessment of the sourced material [70]. This approach offers more flexibility in selecting and interpreting literature but at the cost of higher potential for selection bias and lower reproducibility [70] [65].

Comparative Analysis: Key Domains

The distinctions between systematic and narrative reviews manifest across several critical domains, from their fundamental objectives to their practical execution. The table below summarizes these core differences.

Table 1: Fundamental Differences Between Systematic and Traditional Reviews

Domain	Systematic Review	Traditional (Narrative) Review
Objective & Research Question	Answers a specific, hypothesis-based research question [66] [67]	Explores a broad topic or provides context [66] [70]
Methodology & Approach	Follows a structured, predefined protocol (e.g., PRISMA) to minimize bias [17] [67]	Flexible, interpretive approach with no mandated protocol [66] [69]
Scope	Narrow and focused [70]	Wide-ranging and broad [70]
Bias Control	Extensive; explicit methods to minimize selection and publication bias [70] [65]	Minimal; high risk of author selection bias [70] [65]
Reproducibility	High due to transparent and documented processes [70]	Low due to unspecified search and selection methods [70]
Quality Assessment	Required; critical appraisal of included studies [66] [67]	Often omitted [66] [70]
Synthesis	Narrative/tabular, sometimes with meta-analysis [66] [67]	Narrative summary [66]
Timeline	Months to years (average 18 months) [66]	Weeks to months [66] [69]
Team	Typically three or more reviewers [66]	One or more authors [66]

Methodological Rigor and Bias Susceptibility

The commitment to methodological rigor is the most significant differentiator. Systematic reviews employ explicit, pre-planned strategies to identify and mitigate bias at every stage. This includes registering a protocol on platforms like PROSPERO, conducting a comprehensive search across multiple databases and grey literature, and having multiple reviewers independently screen studies [70] [67]. The PRISMA checklist provides a standardized framework for reporting, ensuring all critical elements are documented [67].

Conversely, narrative reviews are more susceptible to bias. The search strategy is often not systematic or exhaustive, potentially overlooking critical studies. The selection and interpretation of literature can be influenced by the author's perspective, experience, or unconscious preferences, leading to a skewed representation of the available evidence [65]. As noted in a comparative analysis, different narrative reviews on the same topic and including the same studies can reach divergent conclusions, highlighting their limitations as definitive scientific evidence [65].

Applicability and Use Cases

The choice between review types is not about one being universally superior but about selecting the right tool for the research goal.

Table 2: Optimal Use Cases for Different Review Types

Research Goal	Recommended Review Type	Rationale
Answering a specific research question (e.g., "Is intervention A effective for outcome B in population C?")	Systematic Review	The structured methodology provides a definitive, evidence-based answer with minimal bias [70] [67].
Evidence-based policy or clinical guideline development	Systematic Review (sometimes with Meta-Analysis)	Considered the gold standard for generating reliable evidence to inform high-stakes decisions [69] [65].
Broad exploration of a topic / theory development	Narrative Review	Ideal for gaining a wide-ranging understanding, exploring new fields, and generating hypotheses [70] [69].
Mapping the extent and nature of evidence on a broad topic	Scoping Review (a type of systematic map)	Useful for identifying key concepts, gaps, and knowledge clusters in a emerging or complex field [68] [15].
Quick synthesis for urgent decision-making	Rapid Review	Applies streamlined systematic review methods under time constraints [67] [69].

Experimental Protocols and Methodological Workflows

The Systematic Review Workflow: The PSALSAR Framework

A robust methodology for conducting a systematic review, particularly in environmental sciences, is the PSALSAR method, which enhances the common SALSA framework by adding critical initial and final steps [17]. The workflow can be visualized as a structured process, as shown in the diagram below.

Figure 1: The PSALSAR framework for systematic reviews, outlining the six key stages from protocol development to results reporting.

• Protocol: This initial stage involves defining the research scope, formulating a specific question using frameworks like PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) or PECO (Population, Exposure, Comparison, Outcome) for environmental health, and developing a detailed review protocol [17] [15]. Registering the protocol on PROSPERO is a best practice.
• Search: A systematic search is conducted across multiple academic databases and grey literature sources using pre-defined search strings. The strategy must be documented in sufficient detail to be replicable [67].
• Appraisal: Identified records are screened against predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria, first by title/abstract and then by full text. The quality and risk of bias of included studies are critically appraised using standardized tools [17] [67].
• Synthesis: Data is extracted from included studies and categorized. This can involve descriptive analysis or statistical pooling (meta-analysis) if studies are sufficiently homogeneous [17].
• Analysis: The synthesized data is analyzed to narrate the results, assess the strength and consistency of the evidence, and reach a conclusion [17].
• Reporting: The final step involves transparently reporting the procedure, findings, limitations, and conclusions, following guidelines like PRISMA [17] [67].

The Traditional Review Workflow

The narrative review process is less linear and more iterative, as visualized below.

Figure 2: The general workflow for a traditional narrative review, characterized by its exploratory and iterative nature.

This process typically begins with defining a broad topic, followed by exploratory and often non-exhaustive searching. The reviewer identifies key themes and patterns from the gathered literature and then organizes and interprets these findings to produce a narrative summary. The lack of predefined, systematic steps at each stage is the key distinction from the systematic review workflow.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents for Review Production

Conducting a high-quality review, particularly a systematic one, requires a suite of conceptual and practical tools. The table below details key "research reagents" essential for the process.

Table 3: Essential Toolkit for Conducting Literature Reviews

Tool / Reagent	Function	Application Context
PICO/PECO Framework	Provides a structured approach to formulating a focused, answerable research question by defining key components [70] [15].	Systematic Reviews; essential for protocol development.
PRISMA Statement	An evidence-based minimum set of items for reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Includes a 27-item checklist and flow diagram [67].	Systematic Reviews; critical for ensuring transparent and complete reporting.
PROSPERO Registry	An international prospective register of systematic reviews. Allows for pre-registration of review protocols to reduce duplication and bias [66] [67].	Systematic Reviews; used during the protocol stage.
Covidence / Rayyan	Web-based tools that streamline the screening and data extraction phases of a systematic review by enabling collaborative work and conflict resolution [70].	Systematic Reviews; used during the appraisal and synthesis stages.
Meta-Analysis Software (e.g., R, RevMan, STATA)	Statistical software packages used to conduct meta-analyses, combine effect sizes, assess heterogeneity, and create forest plots [67].	Systematic Reviews (with quantitative synthesis).
Thematic Analysis	A qualitative method for identifying, analyzing, and reporting patterns (themes) within data. Provides structure for synthesizing findings [66].	Narrative Reviews; Systematic Reviews (qualitative synthesis).

The comparative analysis reveals that systematic and traditional reviews are complementary methodologies, each with a distinct and vital role in the scientific ecosystem. The systematic review is the undisputed choice for generating high-quality, reliable evidence to answer specific questions and inform policy and practice in environmental science and drug development. Its rigorous, transparent, and reproducible nature minimizes bias and provides a solid foundation for evidence-based decision-making.

Conversely, the traditional narrative review excels in providing a broad, integrative overview of a field, exploring emerging topics, and developing theoretical frameworks. Its flexibility makes it invaluable for early-stage research, educational purposes, and synthesizing knowledge across diverse disciplines where a strict systematic approach may be impractical or premature.

For researchers, the decision is paramount. By understanding the comparative strengths, limitations, and appropriate applications of each method, scientists can strategically select and execute the review methodology that best aligns with their research objectives, thereby contributing more effectively to the advancement of knowledge in their field.

The translation of environmental health science into protective public policy relies fundamentally on the integrity of the evidence synthesis process. Historically, the field has depended on expert-based narrative reviews, which often lack transparent methodology. Over recent decades, systematic review methodologies have emerged as more rigorous alternatives, promising to minimize bias and maximize reproducibility [1] [53]. This evolution mirrors a similar transition that occurred in clinical medicine decades ago, where systematic approaches now routinely inform billion-dollar healthcare decisions [53]. The fundamental question remains: does the methodology employed to synthesize scientific evidence actually influence the conclusions drawn about environmental health risks?

This guide provides an objective comparison of traditional and systematic review methodologies in environmental health, presenting empirical evidence demonstrating how methodological choices directly impact review conclusions. We examine quantitative comparisons of methodological quality, describe standardized protocols for different review types, and analyze how methodological rigor affects the utility, validity, and transparency of evidence synthesis. As regulatory agencies worldwide increasingly rely on evidence syntheses to inform environmental policy decisions [30] [71], understanding these methodological influences becomes paramount for researchers, risk assessors, and policymakers alike.

Quantitative Comparison of Review Methodologies

Empirical Performance Data

A landmark study directly compared the methodological quality of systematic versus non-systematic reviews in environmental health by applying the Literature Review Appraisal Toolkit (LRAT) to 29 reviews published between 2003-2019 [1] [56]. The results demonstrated consistent, statistically significant advantages for systematic approaches across nearly all methodological domains.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Systematic vs. Non-Systematic Reviews in Environmental Health

LRAT Assessment Domain	Systematic Reviews (% Satisfactory)	Non-Systematic Reviews (% Satisfactory)	Statistical Significance
Protocol Development	23%	0%	p < 0.05
Comprehensive Search	85%	19%	p < 0.01
Transparent Study Selection	92%	25%	p < 0.001
Data Extraction Methods	77%	13%	p < 0.01
Internal Validity Assessment	38%	6%	p < 0.05
Consistent Evidence Evaluation	46%	0%	p < 0.01
Role/Contribution Statement	38%	19%	p < 0.05
Pre-defined Evidence Bar	54%	13%	p < 0.05
Conflict of Interest Disclosure	54%	31%	p < 0.05

The data reveal that systematic reviews received a higher percentage of "satisfactory" ratings across every LRAT domain compared to non-systematic reviews [56]. In eight of these domains, the difference was statistically significant. Particularly notable are the disparities in comprehensive searching (85% vs. 19%), transparent study selection (92% vs. 25%), and systematic data extraction (77% vs. 13%). These methodological elements are crucial for minimizing selection bias and ensuring that conclusions reflect the complete body of available evidence.

Non-systematic reviews performed poorly, with the majority receiving "unsatisfactory" or "unclear" ratings in 11 of the 12 domains [1]. Perhaps more concerning, even systematic reviews showed significant methodological weaknesses in several areas: 77% failed to state review objectives or develop a protocol, 62% did not consistently evaluate internal validity using a valid method, and 62% omitted statements regarding author roles and contributions [1] [56]. This indicates that self-identification as a "systematic review" does not guarantee methodological rigor, highlighting the need for standardized protocols and reporting requirements in environmental health evidence synthesis.

Adoption of Evidence Grading Systems

The methodological rigor of evidence synthesis in environmental health can be further quantified by examining the adoption of formal evidence grading systems. A 2024 methodological survey of systematic reviews on air pollution exposure and reproductive/children's health found that only 18 out of 177 (9.8%) utilized formal systems for rating the body of evidence [30]. Among these, 15 distinct internal validity assessment tools and 9 different grading systems for bodies of evidence were identified, with multiple modifications applied to the cited approaches.

The Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) framework were the most commonly used approaches, though neither was developed specifically for environmental health applications [30]. The high heterogeneity in evidence grading approaches, combined with their limited adoption, represents a significant methodological challenge for reconciling conclusions across reviews on similar topics.

Methodological Protocols and Workflows

Systematic Review Methodology

The Navigation Guide methodology exemplifies a systematic approach specifically developed for environmental health questions [53]. This protocol provides a rigorous, transparent framework for translating environmental health science into evidence-based conclusions.

Table 2: Navigation Guide Systematic Review Protocol

Step	Key Components	Environmental Health Adaptations
1. Specify Study Question	PECO/PICO framework (Population, Exposure, Comparator, Outcome)	Explicit inclusion of exposure elements rather than clinical interventions
2. Select Evidence	Comprehensive, systematic search; documented search strategy	Inclusion of multidisciplinary databases; gray literature; non-English sources
3. Rate Quality & Strength	Quality assessment of individual studies; strength of body of evidence	"Moderate" quality rating for high-quality observational studies; separate human and nonhuman evidence streams
4. Integrate Evidence	Combine evidence streams; apply predefined evidence categories	Integration of human and animal evidence; five possible conclusions: "known to be toxic" to "probably not toxic"
5. Strength of Recommendation	Integrate evidence strength with exposure, alternatives, and preferences	Policy-focused recommendations considering population exposure and regulatory context

The PSALSAR method provides another systematic framework comprising six distinct steps: Protocol, Search, Appraisal, Synthesis, Analysis, and Reporting [17]. This method expands on the conventional SALSA (Search, Appraisal, Synthesis, Analysis) framework by adding formal research protocol development and structured reporting of results, enhancing reproducibility and transparency.

Figure 1: Systematic Review Workflow Following PSALSAR Protocol

Traditional Narrative Review Process

In contrast to systematic methodologies, traditional expert-based narrative reviews typically follow a non-standardized, implicit process characterized by: selective literature searching (often based on convenience or expert familiarity), absence of predefined inclusion criteria, unstructured quality assessment (if performed at all), and idiosyncratic evidence interpretation influenced by individual expert perspective [1] [53]. This approach lacks explicit documentation of methods, making it difficult to assess potential biases or reproduce results.

The fundamental distinction between these approaches lies in their methodology, not necessarily their authors' expertise. As one analysis noted, "Systematic reviews produced more useful, valid, and transparent conclusions compared to non-systematic reviews, but poorly conducted systematic reviews were prevalent" [56]. This highlights that the systematic process itself, rather than merely the label "systematic," drives the reliability of conclusions.

Specialized Methodological Approaches

Alternative Evidence Synthesis Frameworks

Beyond traditional systematic reviews, several specialized methodologies have been developed to address specific environmental health synthesis needs:

Systematic mapping provides a broad overview of evidence landscapes without the depth of synthesis characteristic of full systematic reviews [15]. This approach is particularly valuable for identifying knowledge clusters and gaps across broad environmental topics. Systematic maps catalog available evidence using similar rigorous search methods as systematic reviews but focus on descriptive characterization rather than answering specific research questions through data synthesis.

Scoping reviews are particularly useful when examining emerging evidence where specific questions have not yet been clearly defined [72]. They aim to identify the types of available evidence, clarify key concepts, or examine how research is conducted on a certain topic. In environmental health, scoping reviews can help map complex, multidisciplinary evidence bases before committing to more resource-intensive systematic reviews.

Environmental Health-Specific Methodological Challenges

Evidence synthesis in environmental health faces unique methodological challenges that distinguish it from clinical medicine: the predominantly observational nature of available evidence, life stage-specific vulnerabilities (e.g., developmental windows of susceptibility), complex exposure assessment challenges, and mixture effects from co-exposures to multiple environmental contaminants [30].

These challenges necessitate adaptations to methodologies developed for clinical research. For instance, the automatic downgrading of observational studies commonly practiced in clinical evidence grading systems may be inappropriate for environmental questions where randomized controlled trials are often unethical or infeasible [30]. Similarly, exposure assessment methodologies must account for critical developmental windows and vulnerable subpopulations.

Essential Research Reagents and Tools

Table 3: Essential Methodological Tools for Environmental Health Evidence Synthesis

Tool Category	Specific Tools/Approaches	Function & Application
Evidence Synthesis Frameworks	Navigation Guide [53], GRADE [30], PSALSAR [17]	Provide structured protocols for conducting systematic reviews; ensure methodological rigor and transparency
Quality Assessment Tools	Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) [30], ROBIS [30]	Assess risk of bias and methodological quality of individual primary studies
Reporting Standards	PRISMA [18], eMERGe [18], ROSES [18]	Ensure complete and transparent reporting of review methods and findings
Analysis Tools	Meta-analysis software (R, Stata, RevMan)	Enable quantitative synthesis of effect estimates across multiple studies
Search & Screening Platforms	Covidence [71], Systematic Review Accelerator [30]	Streamline literature screening, selection, and data extraction processes

The selection of appropriate methodological tools significantly influences the efficiency, validity, and reliability of environmental health evidence syntheses. As evidenced by the methodological survey of air pollution systematic reviews, the high heterogeneity in tool application (15 different quality assessment tools across 18 reviews) complicates cross-review comparisons and may contribute to varying conclusions on similar topics [30].

Implications for Evidence-Based Decision Making

The methodological rigor of evidence syntheses directly impacts their utility for environmental health decision-making. Regulatory agencies including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the World Health Organization have increasingly adopted systematic review methodologies to inform policy decisions [53] [71]. The demonstrated superiority of systematic methods for minimizing bias provides a more reliable foundation for these high-stakes decisions.

However, the prevalence of poorly conducted systematic reviews [1] and the limited adoption of formal evidence grading systems (only 9.8% of air pollution reviews) [30] indicate significant room for methodological improvement in the field. The transition from traditional narrative reviews to empirically validated systematic methods represents an ongoing evolution in environmental health evidence synthesis—one that promises more transparent, reliable, and actionable conclusions to better protect public health.

Future methodological development should focus on creating standardized, empirically validated approaches specifically designed for environmental health's unique challenges, including appropriate handling of observational evidence, life stage considerations, and complex exposure assessment. Only through such methodological advances can the field ensure that conclusions reflect true environmental health risks rather than artifacts of review methodology.

In environmental health research, the choice between systematic review methods and traditional narrative reviews significantly impacts the reliability and utility of evidence synthesized for policymakers and researchers. Systematic reviews employ explicit, predefined, and reproducible methods to minimize bias, comprehensively identify all relevant studies, and critically appraise the evidence [73]. In contrast, traditional reviews often lack explicit systematic search strategies, standardized quality assessment, and transparent reporting, making them more susceptible to author bias and less reliable for policy decisions [46]. The interdisciplinary nature of environmental science, which encompasses fields like ecology, hydrology, toxicology, and public health, presents particular challenges for evidence synthesis due to diverse methodologies, terminologies, and study designs across these disciplines [46] [73]. This case study examines the application of these methodological approaches to a critical research question: the relationship between early-life exposure to air pollution and impaired neurodevelopment in children.

Methodological Comparison: Systematic vs. Traditional Review Frameworks

Core Methodological Differences

Table 1: Fundamental Characteristics of Systematic vs. Traditional Reviews

Feature	Systematic Review	Traditional Narrative Review
Research Question	Pre-specified, focused using PICO/CoCo frameworks [73]	Often broad, may evolve during writing
Protocol	Published or registered a priori [73]	Rarely documented or published
Search Strategy	Comprehensive, explicit, reproducible search across multiple databases [46] [73]	Often unspecified, potentially selective
Study Selection	Defined eligibility criteria applied by multiple reviewers independently [46]	Unclear or subjective selection process
Risk of Bias Assessment	Critical appraisal using standardized tools [74] [73]	Variable, often informal critical appraisal
Evidence Synthesis	Structured, may include meta-analysis; assesses certainty (e.g., GRADE) [73]	Often qualitative, narrative summary
Reporting	Follows PRISMA or similar guidelines [74] [75]	No standardized reporting format

Application to Air Pollution and Neurodevelopment

Applying these methodologies to air pollution and neurodevelopment reveals stark contrasts in process and outcome. A systematic review on this topic would define specific pollutants (PM({2.5}), NO(2)), exposure windows (prenatal, early childhood), and neurodevelopmental outcomes (cognitive function, ADHD diagnoses) a priori [74] [76]. It would implement a comprehensive search across databases like PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, with explicit inclusion criteria applied consistently by multiple reviewers [74] [46]. Study quality would be assessed using validated tools, and findings would be structured around the strength and certainty of evidence [74] [73].

Conversely, a traditional review might provide a valuable scholarly narrative but would lack the methodological rigor to support definitive conclusions about causal relationships or strength of evidence. Without systematic search and appraisal, it might overemphasize positive findings or studies from high-income countries, potentially introducing bias [75]. The traditional approach would struggle to transparently reconcile contradictory findings, such as the "widespread brain differences" but "largely inconsistent" magnitude and direction of effects noted in recent air pollution neuroimaging studies [74].

Case Study: Systematic Review of Air Pollution and Neurodevelopmental Outcomes

Systematic Review Evidence Synthesis

Recent systematic reviews applying these rigorous methodologies have substantially advanced our understanding of air pollution's neurodevelopmental impacts. Morrel et al. (2025) conducted a systematic review of 26 publications investigating air pollution exposure and brain structure/function using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) [74]. Their methodology followed PRISMA guidelines and implemented a standardized risk of bias instrument used to inform WHO Global Air Quality Guidelines [74]. The review found that prenatal and childhood exposure to outdoor air pollution is associated with structural and functional brain variations, though it noted inconsistency in the magnitude and direction of findings across studies [74].

Complementing this, a large cohort study applying systematic exposure assessment methods demonstrated that children exposed to higher air pollution in early childhood (ages 2-4 years) reported worse general health at age 17, with PM(_{2.5}) exposure associated with an odds ratio of 1.06 (95% CI: 1.01-1.11) after adjusting for confounders [76]. This study linked residential history to high-resolution (25×25 m grid) annual air pollution maps, demonstrating how systematic exposure assessment strengthens causal inference [76].

Table 2: Key Neurodevelopmental Outcomes Associated with Air Pollution Exposure from Systematic Reviews

Neurodevelopmental Domain	Specific Outcomes	Strength of Evidence	Key Pollutants
Brain Structure	Widespread structural & functional brain differences on MRI; altered white matter integrity [74] [77]	Moderate (inconsistent directionality) [74]	PM({2.5}), NO(2), PM(_{10})
Cognitive Function	Lower cognitive functioning; poor executive function performance [78] [79]	Moderate-strong (multiple cohorts) [78]	PM(_{2.5}), PAHs
Clinical Disorders	Increased ADHD risk; autism spectrum disorders [78] [80]	Moderate (epidemiological consistency) [80]	PM({2.5}), NO(2)
Mental Health	Behavior problems; anxiety/depression symptoms [78] [76]	Emerging (more evidence needed) [76]	PM({2.5}), NO(2)

Experimental Models and Mechanistic Insights

Systematic reviews have also synthesized evidence from experimental models, revealing potential biological mechanisms. A 2025 mouse study exposed animals to real-time ambient air pollution from conception through young adulthood, systematically assessing neurobehavioral performance and gut microbiome across developmental stages [79]. The researchers employed a standardized experimental protocol with a 2×2 crossover design (filtered air vs. exposure, with and without antibiotic treatment) and behavioral tests including Open Field Test (OFT) and Morris Water Maze (MWM) at both adolescence and young adulthood [79]. This systematic approach demonstrated that air pollution-induced alterations in gut microbiome significantly mediated neurodevelopmental impairments, and that these effects diminished after antibiotic intervention, suggesting a microbiome-gut-brain axis mechanism [79].

Table 3: Experimental Methods for Neurodevelopmental Toxicity Assessment

Method Category	Specific Techniques	Application in Air Pollution Research	Outcomes Measured
Neuroimaging	Structural MRI, Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI), Fixel-Based Analysis (FBA), Resting-state fMRI [74] [77]	White matter integrity (FA, MD), functional connectivity, brain morphology [74] [77]	Global fractional anisotropy, mean diffusivity, network integration [77]
Behavioral Testing	Open Field Test (OFT), Morris Water Maze (MWM) [79]	Anxiety-like behavior, spatial learning & memory [79]	Distance traveled, speed, time in center; escape latency, platform crossings [79]
Microbiome Analysis	Shotgun metagenomic sequencing [79]	Gut microbiome composition & function	Taxonomic profiles, functional pathways, mediation effects [79]
Exposure Simulation	Real-time Ambient Air Exposure (RTAAE) systems [79]	Whole-body exposure to ambient pollution	PM({2.5}), PM({10}), NO(2), O(3) concentrations [79]

The Researcher's Toolkit: Essential Methods and Reagents

Table 4: Research Reagent Solutions for Air Pollution Neurodevelopmental Studies

Category	Specific Tools/Reagents	Research Application	Key Function
Air Pollution Exposure Systems	Real-time Ambient Air Exposure (RTAAE) [79]	Whole-body inhalation exposure in animal models	Simulates real-world pollution exposure
Microbiome Depletion	Antibiotic cocktails (ABX) [79]	Gut microbiome elimination in mechanistic studies	Tests mediation via microbiome-gut-brain axis
Neuroimaging Contrast	Diffusion MRI metrics (FA, MD) [77]	White matter integrity assessment	Quantifies microstructural brain changes
Pollutant Analysis	Combustion Ion Chromatography (CIC) [75]	Total fluorine/PFAS analysis in environmental samples	Measures pollutant concentrations
Behavioral Assessment	Open Field Test apparatus [79]	Anxiety-like behavior measurement	Standardized behavioral phenotyping
Molecular Analysis	Metagenomic sequencing kits [79]	Gut microbiome composition & function	Comprehensive microbial community analysis

This case study demonstrates that systematic review methodologies provide substantially more robust and actionable evidence on air pollution and neurodevelopment compared to traditional reviews. The systematic approach's strength lies in its transparent methodology, comprehensive search strategies, standardized quality assessment, and structured evidence synthesis [73]. These features are particularly crucial in environmental health, where research questions are inherently interdisciplinary and evidence must inform regulatory decisions and public health policies [46] [73].

Future directions in the field include the integration of artificial intelligence tools to assist with evidence screening in systematic reviews, potentially improving consistency in applying eligibility criteria across diverse interdisciplinary literature [46]. Additionally, addressing geographic biases in research (e.g., the concentration of studies in North America and Europe relative to the global burden of air pollution) remains a critical challenge [75]. As environmental health evidence continues to accumulate, the rigorous application of systematic review methods will be essential for generating reliable evidence to protect the neurodevelopmental health of children worldwide.

Systematic reviews represent a fundamental shift in how evidence is synthesized for scientific policy and decision-making. Unlike traditional narrative reviews, systematic reviews attempt to identify, appraise, and synthesize all empirical evidence that meets pre-specified eligibility criteria to answer a specific research question using explicit, systematic methods aimed at minimizing bias [81]. This methodology has gained prominence across various fields, including clinical medicine and environmental health, as a mechanism to provide more reliable, transparent, and actionable findings for policymakers [1] [82]. The transition from "expert-based narrative" reviews to systematic approaches in environmental science reflects a growing recognition that robust evidence synthesis is crucial for timely and effective public health protections, as demonstrated in areas like tobacco control and lead poisoning prevention [1].

This guide objectively compares the performance of systematic reviews against traditional review methodologies within environmental science and drug development, providing a detailed analysis of their respective protocols, outputs, and influences on regulatory policy.

Systematic Reviews vs. Traditional Reviews: A Methodological Comparison

Core Philosophical and Procedural Differences

Systematic reviews and traditional narrative reviews differ fundamentally in their philosophy, process, and outputs. Traditional narrative reviews typically offer a broad perspective on a topic without a specified search strategy, leading to significant potential for bias, and may not evaluate the quality of the underlying evidence [28]. In contrast, systematic reviews are characterized by a comprehensive search with minimized bias, a pre-planned protocol based on a specific question, and formal quality assessment of included evidence [28].

The key methodological differences are substantial. Systematic reviews employ explicit, reproducible methodologies with extensive searches to identify all relevant published and unpublished literature, while traditional reviews often use unsystematic, selective literature sampling [1] [28]. Systematic reviews pre-define eligibility criteria and assess the risk of bias in included studies, whereas traditional reviews rarely apply consistent eligibility or quality assessment criteria [1]. This methodological rigor positions systematic reviews as a more reliable evidence source for high-stakes policy decisions.

Empirical Performance Comparison

Empirical studies demonstrate significant quality differences between systematic and traditional reviews. A comprehensive appraisal of reviews in environmental health applied a modified version of the Literature Review Appraisal Toolkit (LRAT) to 29 reviews across three environmental health topics [1]. The results revealed stark contrasts in methodological quality.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Systematic vs. Non-Systematic Reviews in Environmental Health

Appraisal Domain	Systematic Reviews (% Satisfactory)	Non-Systematic Reviews (% Satisfactory)
Stated Objectives	23%	6%
Protocol Development	23%	0%
Comprehensive Search	85%	19%
Explicit Inclusion Criteria	77%	25%
Quality Assessment	62%	13%
Roles/Contributions Stated	38%	19%
Consistent Validity Assessment	38%	13%
Pre-defined Evidence Bar	54%	19%
Conflict of Interest Disclosure	54%	31%

Across eight of twelve domains, systematic reviews received statistically significantly higher "satisfactory" ratings [1]. Nonetheless, systematic reviews showed notable deficiencies in several areas, including frequently failing to state objectives or develop protocols (77% unsatisfactory), suggesting that the "systematic" label alone doesn't guarantee comprehensive methodology.

Methodological Frameworks and Protocols

Standardized Protocols for Systematic Reviews

Systematic reviews follow structured protocols to ensure transparency, transferability, and replicability. The PSALSAR framework exemplifies this approach with six distinct steps: Protocol, Search, Appraisal, Synthesis, Analysis, and Reporting [83] [17]. This method expands on the common SALSA (Search, Appraisal, Synthesis, Analysis) framework by adding formal protocol development and results reporting stages, making the review process explicitly reproducible [83].

The PICOC framework (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Context) is frequently used to formulate systematic review questions in environmental science [83]. For example, in a systematic review of mountain ecosystem services:

• Population: Scientific research on ecosystem services in mountainous regions
• Intervention: Identification of research gaps and methodological approaches
• Comparison: Different methods to quantify/value/map various mountain ecosystem services
• Outcome: Existing knowledge trends and research gaps
• Context: Geographical and methodological distribution of existing studies [83]

Other established standards include the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines for ensuring complete reporting [1] [84], and Cochrane's Methodological Expectations (MECIR), which provide detailed standards for conduct and reporting that are integrated into systematic review software [81].

Workflow Visualization

The following diagram illustrates the standardized workflow for conducting a systematic review, based on the PSALSAR framework:

Table 2: Essential Resources for Conducting Systematic Reviews

Resource	Type	Primary Function	Field of Application
Cochrane Handbook	Methodological Guide	Standards for systematic reviews of interventions	Clinical Medicine, Public Health [81]
PRISMA Guidelines	Reporting Framework	Checklist for transparent reporting of systematic reviews	Healthcare, Environmental Science [1] [84]
PSALSAR Framework	Methodological Framework	Six-step process for systematic literature reviews	Environmental Science [83] [17]
PICOC Framework	Conceptual Framework	Defining research scope and questions	Multiple disciplines [83]
Navigation Guide	Methodological Framework	Systematic review method for environmental health	Environmental Health [1]
RobotAnalyst/AbstrackR	Software Tool	Machine learning-assisted citation screening	Healthcare, Evidence Synthesis [5]

Systematic Reviews in Environmental Risk Assessment

Transforming Environmental Health Policy

Systematic reviews have progressively transformed environmental risk assessment by introducing greater methodological rigor and transparency. Historically, environmental health relied predominantly on expert-based narrative review methods that did not follow pre-specified, consistently applied, and transparent rules [1]. The introduction of systematic methodologies, such as the Navigation Guide developed in 2009, has established empirically validated approaches for transparently synthesizing environmental health evidence [1].

The Navigation Guide method, now endorsed and applied by the National Academy of Sciences and the World Health Organization, implements systematic review principles specifically designed for environmental health questions [1]. This represents a significant advancement over traditional approaches, as it provides explicit criteria for evidence evaluation that minimizes bias and enhances reproducibility in hazard identification—a crucial foundation for regulatory action.

Case Study: Air Pollution and Autism Spectrum Disorder

A specific case study comparing different review methodologies examined the relationship between air pollution and Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) [1]. The systematic review conducted using the Navigation Guide methodology demonstrated superior methodological quality compared to traditional narrative reviews addressing the same question. The systematic approach employed exhaustive searches across multiple databases, predefined inclusion criteria, formal risk of bias assessment using established tools, and transparent synthesis of the evidence [1].

In contrast, traditional reviews on the same topic showed substantial methodological limitations, including unsystematic literature selection, lack of explicit quality assessment criteria, and insufficient documentation of methods to ensure reproducibility [1]. These limitations potentially introduce bias and reduce the reliability of conclusions, thereby undermining their utility for evidence-based policymaking aimed at protecting public health from air pollution hazards.

Systematic Reviews in Drug Development and Regulation

Informing Regulatory Decisions and Therapeutic Approvals

Systematic reviews play a crucial role in drug development and regulation, providing the evidential foundation for therapeutic approvals and treatment guidelines. Cochrane systematic reviews are considered the highest level of evidence on therapeutic effectiveness and are increasingly used by organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO) to inform essential medicines lists and clinical guidelines [81] [82]. The number of Cochrane reviews cited in WHO guidelines quadrupled between 2008 and 2015, demonstrating their growing influence on global medicine policy [81].

A landmark example of this influence is the WHO's decision to include off-label use of bevacizumab for age-related macular degeneration (AMD) in its Essential Medicines List, based primarily on a Cochrane review that demonstrated equivalent efficacy and safety between bevacizumab and the significantly more expensive alternative, ranibizumab [81]. This systematic review provided crucial evidence that enabled policymakers to make purchasing decisions that expanded treatment access while conserving healthcare resources.

Case Study: Drug Repurposing Systematic Review

A systematic review on drug repurposing provides an exemplary case study of the methodology's application in pharmaceutical development [84]. This review followed PRISMA reporting standards and employed a comprehensive search across 11 databases using controlled vocabulary and free text terms to identify articles on why promising drugs are abandoned and factors affecting their repurposing [84].

Table 3: Drug Repurposing Systematic Review Methodology

Methodological Component	Implementation
Research Question	Root causes, barriers, and facilitators for drug repurposing
Search Strategy	11 databases searched from inception to April 2020
Screening Process	Independent dual-review with consensus for disagreements
Inclusion Criteria	All article types except book chapters, conference abstracts, non-English
Data Extraction	Independent extraction using standardized software
Analysis	Descriptive analysis of reasons for abandonment, barriers, facilitators

The review identified that promising drugs are most commonly shelved due to insufficient efficacy (59/115 studies), strategic business reasons (35/115), and safety concerns (28/115) [84]. Key barriers to repurposing included inadequate resources (42/115), intellectual property challenges (26/115), and limited data access (20/115), while multi-partner collaborations (38/115) and database access (32/115) emerged as primary facilitators [84]. These findings provide actionable intelligence for policymakers seeking to optimize drug development pipelines through repurposing strategies.

Challenges and Limitations of Systematic Reviews

Methodological and Resource Constraints

Despite their methodological advantages, systematic reviews face significant challenges. They are inherently resource-intensive projects requiring substantial time and expertise. A standardized timeline from the Cochrane Handbook estimates 12 months for completion, with searching and study selection consuming 3-8 months, and validity assessments requiring 3-10 months [28]. This substantial investment can delay urgent policy decisions, particularly in rapidly emerging public health crises.

Recent research has investigated strategies to reduce this burden while maintaining validity. A 2020 study compared traditional screening with semi-automation approaches using tools like RobotAnalyst and AbstrackR, finding that sensitivity of 100% still required reviewers to examine 99% of citations—demonstrating limited efficiency gains with current technology [5]. Similarly, a "review-of-reviews" (ROR) approach showed poor sensitivity (0.54), frequently missing head-to-head comparisons of active treatments, observational studies, and specific outcomes like physical harms and quality of life [5].

Threats to Methodological Integrity

The credibility of systematic reviews faces threats from methodological corruption and commercial influences. The systematic review label is increasingly appropriated by reviews that don't employ truly systematic approaches, sometimes to meet regulatory requirements without adhering to methodological standards [81]. This problem is particularly acute in environmental health, where production of systematic reviews is booming but standards remain variable [81] [1].

Industry influence also represents a significant concern. Critical opinions about systematic reviews' value for policymaking are approximately six times more likely to have disclosed industry ties than supportive articles [81]. When undisclosed ties are considered, critical articles show industry connections 80% of the time versus 35% for supportive articles [81]. Across multiple health fields, industry sponsorship is associated with results and conclusions favoring the sponsor's product or position [81]. Cochrane addresses this by prohibiting commercial sponsorship of reviews, a standard rarely implemented by other publishers [81].

Policy Impact and Influence Pathways

Mechanisms for Informing Policy Action

Systematic reviews influence policy through multiple pathways, primarily by providing synthesized, bias-assessed evidence that directly informs regulatory standards and clinical guidelines. The following diagram illustrates this pathway from evidence synthesis to policy action:

Systematic reviews strengthen this pathway by establishing transparent, reproducible processes for evidence integration. Organizations like the World Health Organization increasingly rely on systematic reviews to inform essential medicines lists and clinical guidelines, with 87 Cochrane reviews cited across nine of twelve WHO guidelines published in 2015 alone [81]. This represents a quadrupling of Cochrane review citations in WHO guidelines between 2008 and 2015 [81].

Enhancing Policy Relevance Through Stakeholder Engagement

A critical factor in determining systematic reviews' policy impact is stakeholder engagement in priority-setting. When policymakers participate in establishing review priorities, the resulting evidence syntheses better address decision-makers' informational needs [81]. Cochrane has implemented various approaches to engage diverse stakeholders, including theoretical frameworks, consensus development, and mapping questions to existing evidence [81]. These efforts aim to ensure systematic reviews address questions relevant to community groups, clinicians, and policymakers across low-, middle-, and high-income countries.

Realist reviews represent another approach to enhancing policy relevance, particularly for complex interventions. These reviews incorporate theory-based analysis to determine which intervention characteristics associate with success or failure across different contexts [81]. Unlike conventional systematic reviews that primarily focus on "what works," realist reviews address "what works for whom, under what circumstances, and why"—information often more valuable for policy implementation [81].

Systematic reviews represent a superior methodology for synthesizing research evidence to inform environmental and pharmaceutical policy when conducted with rigorous adherence to established standards. The empirical evidence demonstrates that systematic reviews produce more useful, valid, and transparent conclusions compared to traditional narrative reviews [1]. However, the systematic review process faces challenges, including resource intensiveness, variable methodological quality, and potential for commercial influence [81] [5].

The transition from traditional to systematic review methodologies in environmental science and drug development marks significant progress toward more evidence-based policymaking. As methodological standards continue to evolve and adapt to different evidence bases and decision contexts, systematic reviews will likely play an increasingly vital role in informing regulatory actions that protect public health and promote effective healthcare interventions. Future developments in automation technology and stakeholder engagement approaches promise to enhance both the efficiency and policy relevance of systematic evidence synthesis.

Defining the Tools: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

In evidence-based research, systematic reviews and meta-analyses are powerful tools for synthesizing scientific literature. While the terms are sometimes used interchangeably, they refer to distinct processes.

A systematic review is a comprehensive literature review that collects and critically appraises all available empirical evidence to answer a specific, pre-defined research question. It uses explicit, systematic methods to minimize bias, providing reliable findings from which conclusions can be drawn [85]. The key characteristic is its systematic nature—employing transparent, reproducible methods defined before the search begins [86] [87].

A meta-analysis is a statistical technique used to combine and analyze quantitative results from multiple independent studies on a similar topic. It generates a pooled, or overall, estimate of the studied phenomenon's effect [85] [88]. Meta-analysis adds value by producing a more precise estimate of an effect than considering any single study individually [86].

The Relationship Between Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The following diagram illustrates the typical workflow of a systematic review and shows how a meta-analysis fits into this process as an optional, though powerful, component.

Key Differences at a Glance

The table below summarizes the core distinctions between a systematic review and a meta-analysis.

Feature	Systematic Review	Meta-Analysis
Core Nature	A comprehensive methodology for evidence synthesis [85].	A statistical technique for quantitative data pooling [89].
Primary Goal	To summarize all empirical evidence that fits pre-specified criteria to answer a research question [86].	To generate a pooled statistical estimate (e.g., an average effect size) from multiple studies [86] [89].
Output	A qualitative or quantitative summary and interpretation of the evidence base, often explaining similarities and differences between studies [87].	A quantitative summary statistic (e.g., combined odds ratio), often displayed in a forest plot [86] [89].
Dependency	Can be conducted independently and does not require a meta-analysis [86] [85].	Is dependent on a systematic review process to identify and appraise studies; it cannot stand alone [89].

Methodological Protocols and Application in Environmental Science

The rigor of both systematic reviews and meta-analyses depends on strict adherence to pre-defined, transparent protocols.

The Systematic Review Protocol (PSALSAR Framework)

For a systematic review, the process is methodically structured. The PSALSAR framework is one explicit and transferable method, which expands on the common SALSA approach by adding crucial initial and final steps [17]:

• Protocol: Define the research scope, question, and methodology in advance.
• Search: Define search strings and databases (e.g., MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central).
• Appraisal: Apply pre-defined literature inclusion, exclusion, and quality assessment criteria.
• Synthesis: Extract and categorize data from the selected studies.
• Analysis: Synthesize data narratively and/or quantitatively.
• Reporting Results: Document the procedure and communicate findings to the public [17].

Critical to the appraisal stage is the assessment of the quality and risk of bias in the included primary studies. In environmental health, tools like the Navigation Guide method have been developed to systematically evaluate the strength of evidence [1] [90].

The Meta-Analysis Workflow

When a systematic review identifies a set of quantitatively similar studies, a meta-analysis can be performed. The key methodological steps for the statistical synthesis are detailed below.

Stage	Protocol & Key Considerations
1. Effect Size Calculation	Calculate a comparable effect size from each study (e.g., Standardized Mean Difference (SMD), log Response Ratio (lnRR), correlation coefficient) [88].
2. Model Selection	Choose a meta-analytic model. Multilevel meta-analytic models are often most appropriate for environmental sciences as they explicitly model non-independence among effect sizes originating from the same study, a common issue traditional random-effects models handle poorly [88].
3. Heterogeneity Quantification	Statistically quantify heterogeneity (i.e., the variation in effect sizes beyond sampling error) using metrics like I². This is essential for interpreting the overall mean [88].
4. Meta-Regression	If significant heterogeneity is detected, use meta-regression to explore whether specific study-level covariates (e.g., participant age, exposure level) can explain the variation [86] [88].
5. Publication Bias Tests	Conduct sensitivity analyses, such as publication bias tests (e.g., funnel plots, Egger's regression test), to assess whether the study sample is representative of all research conducted on the topic [88].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents for Evidence Synthesis

Successfully conducting a systematic review or meta-analysis requires a suite of conceptual and software-based tools.

Tool / Reagent	Function in the Research Process
PICO Framework	A structured method to formulate a research question by defining the Population, Intervention/Exposure, Comparison, and Outcomes [89].
PRISMA Statement	(Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses): A guideline to ensure the transparent and complete reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses [89] [90].
GRADE System	(Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations): A framework for rating the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in a systematic review [89].
Covidence	A web-based software platform that streamlines and manages the screening, selection, data extraction, and quality assessment stages of a systematic review [86].
R package metafor	A powerful statistical package for the R environment used to conduct meta-analyses and meta-regressions, allowing for fitting multilevel models and performing publication bias tests [88].
PROSPERO Registry	An international prospective register of systematic reviews where researchers can pre-register their review protocol to enhance transparency and reduce reporting bias [89].

Synthesis in Context: Environmental Health Research

Within environmental health, the transition from traditional "expert-based narrative" reviews to systematic methods is crucial for robust, evidence-based policy. Research has shown that systematic reviews in environmental health produce more useful, valid, and transparent conclusions compared to non-systematic reviews [1]. However, the same analysis found that poorly conducted systematic reviews were prevalent, highlighting the need for stricter adherence to methodological standards [1].

The unique challenges of environmental health evidence—such as exposure heterogeneity and the predominance of observational study designs—make the rigorous application of these methods particularly important [90]. The combination of systematic review and meta-analysis provides a structured framework to objectively assess the existing knowledge, identify trends, and clarify research gaps in fields like ecosystem services and chemical risk assessment [17] [90].

Conclusion

The choice between a systematic and a traditional review is not merely methodological but fundamentally impacts the reliability and utility of scientific evidence in environmental science. Systematic reviews, with their explicit, pre-specified, and unbiased methods, consistently produce more valid and transparent conclusions, making them the gold standard for informing high-stakes decisions in public health, drug development, and environmental policy. However, their effectiveness is contingent on rigorous execution to avoid common weaknesses such as lack of protocol registration or inconsistent quality assessment. Traditional narrative reviews retain value for providing broad overviews and theoretical perspectives but carry a higher risk of bias. The future of evidence synthesis in environmental science lies in the ongoing refinement and consistent application of systematic methodologies, enhanced by emerging tools and a commitment to open science. This will ensure that research synthesis remains a powerful tool for protecting public health and the environment in an era of complex global challenges.

References

• 1. Reviews in Environmental Health: How Systematic Are They? [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8118386/]
• 2. The benefits of systematic mapping to evidence-based ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4980318/]
• 3. Evidence Synthesis of Observational Studies in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10664749/]
• 4. Systematic Reviews: What Type of Review is Right for You? [https://guides.lib.lsu.edu/c.php?g=872965&p=7860555]
• 5. Comparison of a traditional systematic review approach with ... [https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-020-01450-2]
• 6. A comparison of quasi-experimental methods with data ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10555819/]
• 7. Use of scientific evidence to inform environmental health ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901123001387]
• 8. Enhancing the quality of systematic reviews and meta- ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12641421/]
• 9. Systematic Review - an overview [https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/systematic-review]
• 10. Chapter 1: Starting a review [https://www.cochrane.org/authors/handbooks-and-manuals/handbook/current/chapter-01]
• 11. A comprehensive guide to conduct a systematic review and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12366998/]
• 12. Data extraction and comparison for complex systematic reviews [https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-023-02322-1]
• 13. Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews [https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-023-02255-9]
• 14. Clarifying differences between reviews within evidence ... [https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-019-1089-2]
• 15. A methodology for systematic mapping in environmental ... [https://environmentalevidencejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13750-016-0059-6]
• 16. Types of Literature Reviews: Methods, Strengths & Limitations [https://insights.pluto.im/types-of-literature-reviews-methods-strengths-and-limitations/]
• 17. Method for conducting systematic literature review and ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221501611930353X]
• 18. What are systematic reviews? - UCL Databases [https://library-guides.ucl.ac.uk/systematic-reviews/what]
• 19. A Narrative Policy Approach to Environmental Conservation [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4190146/]
• 20. Understanding the Levels of Evidence in Medical Research [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12064251/]
• 21. Hierarchy of Evidence - Evidence-Based Practice in Health [https://canberra.libguides.com/c.php?g=599346&p=4149721]
• 22. Levels of Evidence - Systematic Reviews - Research Guides [https://guides.library.ucdavis.edu/systematic-reviews/levels-of-evidence]
• 23. Evidence Based Practice Toolkit: Levels of Evidence [https://libguides.winona.edu/ebptoolkit/Levels-Evidence]
• 24. Levels of Evidence - Evidence Based Practice [https://library.spalding.edu/EBP/levels]
• 25. Data visualization in AI-assisted decision-making [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/communication/articles/10.3389/fcomm.2025.1605655/full]
• 26. Identifying the PECO: A framework for formulating good ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6908441/]
• 27. How to use the PICO Framework to Aid Critical Appraisal [https://casp-uk.net/pico-framework/]
• 28. Environmental Science: Systematic Reviews - UCC Library [https://libguides.ucc.ie/c.php?g=459636&p=4156242]
• 29. Challenges and recommendations on the conduct of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7666644/]
• 30. Systems for rating bodies of evidence used in systematic ... [https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-024-01069-z]
• 31. AI-assisted evidence screening method for systematic ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11998256/]
• 32. Evidence Synthesis & Systematic Review Research [https://guides.library.oregonstate.edu/EvidenceSynthesis/es-methods]
• 33. A Guide to Evidence Synthesis: 3. Select Grey Literature ... [https://guides.library.cornell.edu/evidence-synthesis/grey-literature]
• 34. Grey Literature (in the Health Sciences) [https://libguides.usc.edu/healthsciences/grey_literature]
• 35. 4. Search the Evidence - Systematic Reviews - Guides [https://guides.mclibrary.duke.edu/sysreview/search]
• 36. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria | Examples & Definition [https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/inclusion-exclusion-criteria/]
• 37. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria - Systematic Reviews [https://libguides.sph.uth.tmc.edu/SystematicReviews/InclusionAndExclusion]
• 38. Systematic Reviews: Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria - MUSC Library [https://musc.libguides.com/systematicreviews/eligibilitycriteria]
• 39. Critical Appraisal Tools [https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools]
• 40. Critical Appraisal / Data Extraction and Synthesis - Systematic ... [https://tus.libguides.com/c.php?g=689530&p=4936117]
• 41. Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4196729/]
• 42. A systematic review and meta-analysis of air pollution and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12159732/]
• 43. Systematic review and meta-analysis of ex-post ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-48512-w]
• 44. Systematic literature review: a typology of Sustainability ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/education/articles/10.3389/feduc.2025.1490791/full]
• 45. Bamboo ecosystem services in 25 years: a systematic ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-025-36650-7]
• 46. AI-assisted evidence screening method for systematic reviews ... [https://environmentalevidencejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13750-025-00358-5]
• 47. Conducting a systematic literature review of environmental ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S209624872500061X]
• 48. PRISMA statement [https://www.prisma-statement.org/]
• 49. EcoEvo — PRISMA statement [https://www.prisma-statement.org/ecoevo]
• 50. PRISMA 2020 checklist [https://www.prisma-statement.org/prisma-2020-checklist]
• 51. Reporting guidelines under development for systematic ... [https://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/reporting-guidelines-under-development-for-systematic-reviews/]
• 52. Update to the PRISMA guidelines for network meta ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39829235/]
• 53. The Navigation Guide Systematic Review Methodology [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4181919/]
• 54. What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed ... [https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12874-017-0468-4]
• 55. Powering Research Through Innovative Methods for Mixtures ... [https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/supported/exposure/mixtures/prime_program]
• 56. Reviews in environmental health: How systematic are they? [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412021000982]
• 57. What does the science say? A Q&A with Neal Haddaway ... [https://www.sei.org/features/what-does-the-science-say-qa/]
• 58. WHO launches a Repository of systematic reviews on ... [https://www.who.int/news/item/29-02-2024-who-launches-a-repository-of-systematic-reviews-on-interventions-in-environment--climate-change-and-health]
• 59. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for ... [https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4]
• 60. The competitive effect of heterogeneous subjects dominant ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/environmental-science/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2025.1530560/full]
• 61. Navigating color integrity in data visualization - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11117063/]
• 62. “Garbage in, garbage out”—the importance of detailing ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3032114/]
• 63. Meta-analysis. What have we learned? [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0020138322004235]
• 64. Methodological Standards for Conducting High-Quality ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12383630/]
• 65. Why Systematic Review rather than Narrative Review? - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4504929/]
• 66. Systematic Review Process: Types of Reviews - AAH Library [https://library.aah.org/guides/systematicreview/types]
• 67. Systematic and Other Reviews: Criteria and Complexities [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8133804/]
• 68. Systematic Review [https://aut.ac.nz.libguides.com/systematic_reviews]
• 69. What are the different types of literature review? [https://www.litmaps.com/learn/what-are-the-different-types-of-literature-review]
• 70. Key Differences Between Systematic and Traditional ... [https://www.sourcely.net/resources/key-differences-between-systematic-and-traditional-literature-reviews]
• 71. Methods in Public Health Environmental Justice Research [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40572-023-00406-7]
• 72. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors ... [https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x]
• 73. Systematic review methods in environmental health [https://www.ncasi.org/resource/systematic-review-methods-in-environmental-health-a-critical-interpretive-synthesis-to-inform-the-evolution-of-systematic-review-guidance/]
• 74. A systematic review of air pollution exposure and brain ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40073924/]
• 75. A systematic review of methods for the analysis of total per [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39946899/]
• 76. The relationship between early life course air pollution ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-94107-w]
• 77. The Impact of Early Life Exposure to Air Pollution on the Brain [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12451474/]
• 78. Air pollution exposures in early life and brain development ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11808922/]
• 79. Exposure to ambient air pollution over developmental stages ... [https://particleandfibretoxicology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12989-025-00637-6]
• 80. Neuropsychological Effects of Air Pollution on Children and ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/16/10/1164]
• 81. Systematic Review: A Method at Risk for Being Corrupted [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5308162/]
• 82. The rationale behind systematic reviews in clinical medicine [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8212290/]
• 83. Method for conducting systematic literature review and meta-analysis for environmental science research - PMC [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6974768/]
• 84. Drug repurposing: a systematic review on root causes ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9336118/]
• 85. The Differences Between a Systematic Review vs Meta ... [https://www.distillersr.com/resources/systematic-literature-reviews/understanding-the-differences-between-a-systematic-review-vs-meta-analysis]
• 86. The difference between a systematic review and a meta- ... [https://www.covidence.org/blog/the-difference-between-a-systematic-review-and-a-meta-analysis/]
• 87. Systematic Review or Meta-Analysis? - HMSOM Library [https://library.hmsom.edu/SystematicReviews/SR_MA]
• 88. Quantitative evidence synthesis: a practical guide on meta ... [https://environmentalevidencejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13750-023-00301-6]
• 89. Introduction to systematic review and meta-analysis - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5903119/]
• 90. Use of Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4513215/]