Environment International (Aug 2024)
A research synthesis of humans, animals, and environmental compartments exposed to PFAS: A systematic evidence map and bibliometric analysis of secondary literature
Abstract
Background: Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a class of widely used anthropogenic chemicals. Concerns regarding their persistence and potential adverse effects have led to multiple secondary research publications. Here, we aim to assess the resulting evidence base in the systematic secondary literature by examining research gaps, evaluating the quality of reviews, and exploring interdisciplinary connections. Methods: This study employed a systematic evidence-mapping approach to assess the secondary literature on the biological, environmental, and medical aspects of exposure to 35 fluorinated compounds. The inclusion criteria encompassed systematic reviews published in peer-reviewed journals, pre-prints, and theses. Comprehensive searches across electronic databases and grey literature identified relevant reviews. Data extraction and synthesis involved mapping literature content and narrative descriptions. We employed a modified version of the AMSTAR2 checklist to evaluate the methodological rigour of the reviews. A bibliometric data analysis uncovered patterns and trends in the academic literature. A research protocol for this study was previously pre-registered (osf.io/2tpn8) and published (Vendl et al., Environment International 158 (2022) 106973). The database is freely accessible through the interactive and user-friendly web application of this systematic evidence map at https://hi-this-is-lorenzo.shinyapps.io/PFAS_SEM_Shiny_App/. Results: Our map includes a total of 175 systematic reviews. Over the years, there has been a steady increase in the annual number of publications, with a notable surge in 2021. Most reviews focused on human exposure, whereas environmental and animal-related reviews were fewer and often lacked a rigorous systematic approach to literature search and screening. Review outcomes were predominantly associated with human health, particularly with reproductive and children’s developmental health. Animal reviews primarily focused on studies conducted in controlled laboratory settings, and wildlife reviews were characterised by an over-representation of birds and fish species. Recent reviews increasingly incorporated quantitative synthesis methodologies. The methodological strengths of the reviews included detailed descriptions of study selection processes and disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. However, weaknesses were observed in the critical lack of detail in reporting methods. A bibliometric analysis revealed that the most productive authors collaborate within their own country, leading to limited and clustered international collaborations. Conclusions: In this overview of the available systematic secondary literature, we map literature content, assess reviews’ methodological quality, highlight data gaps, and draw research network clusters. We aim to facilitate literature reviews, guide future research initiatives, and enhance opportunities for cross-country collaboration. Furthermore, we discuss how this systematic evidence map and its publicly available database benefit scientists, regulatory agencies, and other stakeholders by providing access to current systematic secondary literature on PFAS exposure.
