BACKGROUND: There is a long tradition in environmental health of using frameworks for evidence synthesis, such as those of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for its Integrated Science Assessments and the International Agency for Research on Cancer Monographs. The framework, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE), was developed for evidence synthesis in clinical medicine. The U.S. Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT) elaborated an approach for evidence synthesis in environmental health building on GRADE. METHODS: We applied a modified OHAT approach and a broader narrative assessment to assess the level of confidence in a large systematic review on traffic-related air pollution and health outcomes. DISCUSSION: We discuss several challenges with the OHAT approach and its implementation and suggest improvements for synthesizing evidence from observational studies in environmental health. We consider the determination of confidence using a formal rating scheme of up- and downgrading of certain factors, the treatment of every factor as equally important, and the lower initial confidence rating of observational studies to be fundamental issues in the OHAT approach. We argue that some observational studies can offer high-confidence evidence in environmental health. We note that heterogeneity in magnitude of effect estimates should generally not weaken the confidence in the evidence, and consistency of associations across study designs, populations, and exposure assessment methods may strengthen confidence in the evidence. We mention that publication bias should be explored beyond statistical methods and is likely limited when large and collaborative studies comprise most of the evidence and when accrued over several decades. We propose to identify possible key biases, their most likely direction, and their potential impacts on the results. We think that the OHAT approach and other GRADE-type frameworks require substantial modification to align better with features of environmental health questions and the studies that address them. We emphasize that a broader, narrative evidence assessment based on the systematic review may complement a formal GRADE-type evaluation. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP11532.

Objectives: We report results of a systematic review on the health effects of long-term traffic-related air pollution (TRAP) and diabetes in the adult population. Methods: An expert Panel appointed by the Health Effects Institute conducted this systematic review. We searched the PubMed and LUDOK databases for epidemiological studies from 1980 to July 2019. TRAP was defined based on a comprehensive protocol. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed. Confidence assessments were based on a modified Office for Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT) approach, complemented with a broader narrative synthesis. We extended our interpretation to include evidence published up to May 2022. Results: We considered 21 studies on diabetes. All meta-analytic estimates indicated higher diabetes risks with higher exposure. Exposure to NO₂ was associated with higher diabetes prevalence (RR 1.09; 95% CI: 1.02; 1.17 per 10 μg/m³), but less pronounced for diabetes incidence (RR 1.04; 95% CI: 0.96; 1.13 per 10 μg/m³). The overall confidence in the evidence was rated moderate, strengthened by the addition of 5 recently published studies. Conclusion: There was moderate evidence for an association of long-term TRAP exposure with diabetes.