The effect of exposure to long working hours on alcohol consumption, risky drinking and alcohol use disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury

The effect of occupational exposure to noise on ischaemic heart disease, stroke and hypertension: A systematic review and meta-analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-Related Burden of Disease and Injury

“…All methods and reporting guidelines were standardised across all systematic reviews conducted for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates ( Descatha et al, 2018 , Descatha et al, 2020 , Godderis et al, 2018 , Hulshof et al, 2019 , Hulshof et al, 2021a , Hulshof et al, 2021b , Li et al, 2018 , Li et al, 2020 , Mandrioli et al, 2018 , Pachito et al, 2020 , Paulo et al, 2019 , Pega et al, 2020a , Rugulies et al, 2019 , Teixeira et al, 2019 , Tenkate et al, 2019 ).…”

“…However, since the electronic database searches were conducted using English language search terms, only records with a title and/or abstract in English could be retrieved at this initial stage. If a record was written in a language other than those spoken by the authors of this review or those of other reviews in the series ( Descatha et al, 2018 , Descatha et al, 2020 , Godderis et al, 2018 , Hulshof et al, 2019 , Hulshof et al, 2021b , Hulshof et al, 2021a , Li et al, 2018 , Li et al, 2020 , Mandrioli et al, 2018 , Pachito et al, 2020 , Paulo et al, 2019 , Pega et al, 2020a , Rugulies et al, 2019 , Teixeira et al, 2019 , Teixeira et al, 2021 , Tenkate et al, 2019 ), (i.e. Arabic, Bulgarian, Chinese, Danish, Dutch, English, French, Finnish, German, Hungarian, Italian, Japanese, Norwegian, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, Swedish and Thai), then the record was translated into English.…”

“…WHO and ILO, supported by a large number of experts, have in parallel also produced a systematic review of studies estimating the prevalence of occupational exposure to noise ( Teixeira et al, 2021 ), applying novel systematic review methods ( Pega et al, 2020a ). The organizations have conducted or are conducting several other systematic reviews and meta-analyses on other risk factor-outcome pairs ( Descatha et al, 2018 , Descatha et al, 2020 , Godderis et al, 2018 , Hulshof et al, 2019 , Hulshof et al, 2021b , Li et al, 2018 , Li et al, 2020 , Mandrioli et al, 2018 , Pachito et al, 2020 , Paulo et al, 2019 , Pega et al, 2020b , Rugulies et al, 2019 , Tenkate et al, 2019 ). To our knowledge, these are the first systematic reviews and meta-analyses (with a pre-published protocol) conducted specifically for an occupational burden of disease study.…”

Improving the quality of toxicology and environmental health systematic reviews: What journal editors can do

“…The first set of formal recommendations for conduct of environmental health systematic reviews, "COSTER", has been published (Whaley et al, 2020a), and an online tool 3 for facilitating consistent editorial triage against a basic set of expectations for systematic reviews has been created, "CREST_Triage" (Whaley and Isalski, 2020). While a bank of specialist peer-reviewers for systematic reviews has not yet been created, there is now an online database 4 of specialist peer-reviewers for search strategies in systematic reviews (Nyhan et al, 2020). The first commentary focusing on advancing systematic review methodology for exposure science, authored by one of the workshop participants (Cohen Hubal et al, 2020), has been published.…”

“…This was shortly followed by the first peerreviewed, pre-published protocol for a systematic review of exposure studies (Sanchez et al, 2020). The World Health Organization is conducting an increasing number of environmental health systematic reviews according to peer-reviewed, pre-published protocols (Pachito et al, 2021;Verbeek et al, 2021;Pega et al, 2021). The above developments have contributed an important set of resources for compiling into a domain-specific toolbox for supporting editors, authors and peer-reviewers of environmental health systematic reviews (Intervention #4).…”