Background: Epidemiological research investigating the impact of exposure to plastics, and plastic-associated chemicals, on human health is critical, especially given exponentially increasing plastic production. In parallel with increasing production, academic researchhas also increased exponentially both in terms of the primary literature and ensuing systematic reviews with meta-analysis. However, there are few overviews that capture a broad range of chemical classes to present a state of play regarding impacts on humanhealth. Methods: We undertook an umbrella review to review the systematic reviews with meta-analyses. Given the complex composition of plastic and the large number of identified plastic-associated chemicals, it was not possible to capture all chemicals that may bepresent in, and migrate from, plastic materials. We therefore focussed on a defined set of key exposures related to plastics. These were microplastics, due to their ubiquity and potential for human exposure, and the polymers that form the matrix of consumer plastics. We also included plasticisers and flame retardants as the two classes of functional additive with the highest concentration ranges in plastic. In addition, we included bisphenols and perand polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) as two other major plastic-associated chemicals with significant known exposure through food contact materials. Epistemonikos and PubMed were searched for systematic reviews with meta-analyses, meta-analyses, and pooled analyses evaluating the association of plastic polymers, particles (microplastics) or any of the selected groups of high-volume plastic-associated chemicals above, measured directly in human biospecimens, with human health outcomes. Results: Fifty-two systematic reviews were included, with data contributing 759 metaanalyses. Most meta-analyses (78%) were from reviews of moderate methodological quality. Across all the publications retrieved, only a limited number of plastic-associated chemicals within each of the groups searched had been evaluated in relevant meta-analyses, and there were no meta-analyses evaluating polymers, nor microplastics. Synthesised estimates of the effects of plastic-associated chemical exposure were identified for the following health outcome categories in humans: birth, child and adult reproductive, endocrine, child neurodevelopment, nutritional, circulatory, respiratory, skin-related and cancers. Bisphenol A (BPA) is associated with decreased anoclitoral distance in infants, type 2 diabetes (T2D) in adults, insulin resistance in children and adults, polycystic ovary syndrome, obesity and hypertension in children and adults and cardiovascular disease(CVD); other bisphenols have not been evaluated. Phthalates, the only plasticisers identified, are associated with spontaneous pregnancy loss, decreased anogenital distance in boys, insulin resistance in children and adults, with additional associationsbetween certain phthalates and decreased birth weight, T2D in adults, precocious puberty in girls, reduced sperm quality, endometriosis, adverse cognitive development and intelligence quotient (IQ) loss, adverse fine motor and psychomotor development and elevated blood pressure in children and asthma in children and adults. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) but not other flame retardants, and some PFAS were identified and are all associated with decreased birth weight. Ingeneral populations, PCBs are associated with T2D in adults and endometriosis, bronchitis in infants, CVD, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) and breast cancer. In PCB-poisoned populations, exposure is associated with overall mortality, mortality from hepatic disease(men), CVD (men and women) and several cancers. PBDEs are adversely associated with children’s cognitive development and IQ loss. PBDEs and certain PFAS are associated with changes in thyroid function. PFAS exposure is associated with increased body massindex (BMI) and overweight in children, attention deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD) in girls and allergic rhinitis. Potential protective associations were found, namely abnormal pubertal timing in boys being less common with higher phthalate exposure, increasedhigh-density lipoprotein (HDL) with exposure to mono(2-ethyl-5-oxohexyl) phthalate (MEOHP) and reduced incidence of chronic lymphocytic lymphoma (a subtype of NHL) with PCB exposure. Conclusions: Exposure to plastic-associated chemicals is associated with adverse outcomes across a wide range of human health domains, and every plastic-associated chemical group is associated with at least one adverse health outcome. Large gapsremain for many plastic-associated chemicals. Recommendations: For research, we recommend that efforts are harmonised globally to pool resources and extend beyond the chemicals included in this umbrella review. Priorities for primary research, with ensuing systematic reviews, could include micro- and nanoplastics as well as emerging plastic-associated chemicals of concern such as bisphenol analogues and replacement plasticisers and flame retardants. With respect to chemical regulation, we propose that safety for plastic-associated chemicals in humans cannot be assumed at market entry. We therefore recommend that improved independent, systematic hazard testing for all plastic-associated chemicals is undertaken before market release of products. In addition because of the limitations of laboratory-based testing for predicting harm from plastic in humans, independent and systematic post-market bio-monitoring and epidemiological studies are essential to detect potential unforeseen harms.

This paper presents a case study of long-term post-retraction citation to falsified clinical trial data (Matsuyama et al. in Chest 128(6):3817–3827, 2005. 10.1378/chest.128.6.3817), demonstrating problems with how the current digital library environment communicates retraction status. Eleven years after its retraction, the paper continues to be cited positively and uncritically to support a medical nutrition intervention, without mention of its 2008 retraction for falsifying data. To date no high quality clinical trials reporting on the efficacy of omega-3 fatty acids on reducing inflammatory markers have been published. Our paper uses network analysis, citation context analysis, and retraction status visibility analysis to illustrate the potential for extended propagation of misinformation over a citation network, updating and extending a case study of the first 6 years of post-retraction citation (Fulton et al. in Publications 3(1):7–26, 2015. 10.3390/publications3010017). The current study covers 148 direct citations from 2006 through 2019 and their 2542 second-generation citations and assesses retraction status visibility of the case study paper and its retraction notice on 12 digital platforms as of 2020. The retraction is not mentioned in 96% (107/112) of direct post-retraction citations for which we were able to conduct citation context analysis. Over 41% (44/107) of direct post-retraction citations that do not mention the retraction describe the case study paper in detail, giving a risk of diffusing misinformation from the case paper. We analyze 152 second-generation citations to the most recent 35 direct citations (2010–2019) that do not mention the retraction but do mention methods or results of the case paper, finding 23 possible diffusions of misinformation from these non-direct citations to the case paper. Link resolving errors from databases show a significant challenge in a reader reaching the retraction notice via a database search. Only 1/8 databases (and 1/9 database records) consistently resolved the retraction notice to its full-text correctly in our tests. Although limited to evaluation of a single case (N = 1), this work demonstrates how retracted research can continue to spread and how the current information environment contributes to this problem.

Background: Low‐to‐middle income countries (LMICs) experience a high burden of disease from both non‐communicable and communicable diseases. Addressing these public health concerns requires effective implementation strategies and localization of translation of knowledge into practice.Aim: To identify and categorize barriers and strategies to evidence implementation in LMICs from published evidence implementation studies.Methods: A descriptive analysis of key characteristics of evidence implementation projects completed as part of a 6‐month, multi‐phase, intensive evidence‐based clinical fellowship program, conducted in LMICs and published in the JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports was undertaken. Barriers were identified and categorized to the Donabedian dimensions of care (structure, process, and outcome), and strategies were mapped to the Cochrane effective practice and organization of care taxonomy.Results: A total of 60 implementation projects reporting 58 evidence‐based clinical audit topics from LMICs were published between 2010 and 2018. The projects included diverse populations and were predominantly conducted in tertiary care settings. A total of 279 barriers to implementation were identified. The most frequently identified groupings of barriers were process‐related and associated predominantly with staff knowledge. A total of 565 strategies were used across all projects, with every project incorporating more than one strategy to address barriers to implementation of evidence‐based practice; most strategies were categorized as educational meetings for healthcare workers.Linking Evidence to Action: Context‐specific strategies are required for successful evidence implementation in LMICs, and a number of common barriers can be addressed using locally available, low‐cost resources. Education for healthcare workers in LMICs is an effective awareness‐raising, workplace culture, and practice‐transforming strategy for evidence implementation.

Predatory journals are a blemish on scholarly publishing and academia and the studies published within them are more likely to contain data that is false. The inclusion of studies from predatory journals in evidence syntheses is potentially problematic due to this propensity for false data to be included. To date, there has been little exploration of the opinions and experiences of evidence synthesisers when dealing with predatory journals in the conduct of their evidence synthesis. In this paper, the thoughts, opinions, and attitudes of evidence synthesisers towards predatory journals and the inclusion of studies published within these journals in evidence syntheses were sought. Focus groups were held with participants who were experienced evidence synthesisers from JBI (previously the Joanna Briggs Institute) collaboration. Utilising qualitative content analysis, two generic categories were identified: predatory journals within evidence synthesis, and predatory journals within academia. Our findings suggest that evidence synthesisers believe predatory journals are hard to identify and that there is no current consensus on the management of these studies if they have been included in an evidence synthesis. There is a critical need for further research, education, guidance, and development of clear processes to assist evidence synthesisers in the management of studies from predatory journals.

Objective: This scoping review aims to identify, catalogue, and characterize previously reported tools, techniques, methods, and processes that have been recommended or used by evidence synthesizers to detect fraudulent or erroneous data and mitigate its impact. Introduction: Decision-making for policy and practice should always be underpinned by the best available evidence—typically peer-reviewed scientific literature. Evidence synthesis literature should be collated and organized using the appropriate evidence synthesis methodology, best exemplified by the role systematic reviews play in evidence-based health care. However, with the rise of “predatory journals,” fraudulent or erroneous data may be invading this literature, which may negatively affect evidence syntheses that use this data. This, in turn, may compromise decision-making processes. Inclusion criteria: This review will include peer-reviewed articles, commentaries, books, and editorials that describe at least 1 tool, technique, method, or process with the explicit purpose of identifying or mitigating the impact of fraudulent or erroneous data for any evidence synthesis, in any topic area. Manuals, handbooks, and guidance from major organizations, universities, and libraries will also be considered. Methods: This review will be conducted using the JBI methodology for scoping reviews and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Databases and relevant organizational websites will be searched for eligible studies. Title and abstract, and, subsequently, full-text screening will be conducted in duplicate. Data from identified full texts will be extracted using a pre-determined checklist, while the findings will be summarized descriptively and presented in tables. Review registration: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/u8yrn

Objective: The objective of this review was to identify and map the available information related to the definition, structure, and core methodological components of evidence summaries, as well as to identify any indicators of quality. Introduction: Evidence summaries offer a practical solution to overcoming some of the barriers present in evidence-based health care, such as lack of access to evidence at the point of care, and the knowledge and expertise to evaluate the quality and translate the evidence into clinical decision-making. However, lack of transparency in reporting and inconsistencies in the methodology of evidence summary development have previously been cited and pose problems for end users (eg, clinicians, policymakers). Inclusion criteria: Any English-language resource that described the methodological development or appraisal of an evidence summary was included. Methods: PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL (EBSCOhost) were systematically searched in November 2019, with no limits on the search. The search was updated in June 2021 and January 2023. Gray literature searches and pearling of references of included sources were also conducted at the same time as the database searches. All resources (ie, articles, papers, books, dissertations, reports, and websites) were eligible for inclusion in the review if they evaluated or described the development or appraisal of an evidence summary methodology within a point-of-care context and were published in English. Literature reviews (eg, systematic reviews, rapid reviews)—including summaries of evidence on interventions or health care activities that measure effects, a phenomenon of interest, or where the objective was the development, description, or evaluation of methods without a clear point-of-care target—were excluded from the review. Results: A total of 76 resources (n = 56 articles from databases and n = 20 reports from gray literature sources) were included in the review. The most common type/name of resource included critically appraised topic (n = 18) and evidence summary (n = 17). A total of 25 resources provided a definition of an evidence summary: commonalities included a clinical question; a structured, systematic literature search; a description of literature selection; and appraisal of evidence. Of these 25 resources, 16 included descriptors such as brief, concise, rapid, short, succinct , and snapshot . The reported methodological components closely reflected the definition results, with the most reported methodological components being a systematic, multi-database search, and critical appraisal. Evidence summary examples were mostly presented as narrative summaries and usually included a reference list, background or clinical context, and recommendations or implications for practice or policy. Four quality assessment tools and a systematic review of tools were included. Conclusions: The findings of this review highlight the wide variability in the definition, language, methodological components, and structure used for point-of-care resources that met our definition of an evidence summary. This scoping review is one of the first stjpg aimed at improving the credibility and transparency of evidence summaries in evidence-based health care, with further research required to standardize the definitions and methodologies associated with point-of-care resources and accepted tools for quality assessment. Supplemental digital content: A Chinese-language version of the abstract of this review is available at http://links.lww.com/SRX/A79; a list of studies ineligible following full-text review is available at http://links.lww.com/SRX/A60.