It was not proving anything - it was listing things in the literature, of which it listed a significant amount of studies that did conclude significant adverse long term effects.
No where did it claim those studies were invalid - and it went to great lengths to list all the problems I listed above and more.
A literature review doesn't get to the end and say "Eureka! We proved it!" It gets to the end and says "we have listed current research, and we recommend further stuff for the following reasons".
It's a literature review - not a meta study, not a new study, not a critique of the previous papers - so it's not the proof you want it to be. The evidence of the paper is in the papers it cited, with key points pulled into this one.
>Read the "Discussion" and "Possible future research" sections.
Yes, it starts with the phrase "Our literature review...." As does the conclusion section, which continued "This literature review found studies that reported the components of road dust particles to be associated with multiple health effects, in particular on the respiratory and cardiovascular system."
I guess we're done at this point. The conclusion clearly states it's a review, and that road dust particles are associated with multiple health effects (which effects? The ones I quoted above, quite serious), which you claim the article does not state.
