A systematic approach for evaluating and scoring human data

Scientific Committee guidance on appraising and integrating evidence from epidemiological studies for use in EFSA's scientific assessments

EFSA requested its Scientific Committee to prepare a guidance document on appraising and integrating evidence from epidemiological studies for use in EFSA's scientific assessments. The guidance document provides an introduction to epidemiological studies and illustrates the typical biases, which may be present in different epidemiological study designs. It then describes key epidemiological concepts relevant for evidence appraisal. This includes brief explanations for measures of association, exposure assessment, statistical inference, systematic error and effect modification. The guidance then describes the concept of external validity and the principles of appraising epidemiological studies. The customisation of the study appraisal process is explained including tailoring of tools for assessing the risk of bias (RoB). Several examples of appraising experimental and observational studies using a RoB tool are annexed to the document to illustrate the application of the approach. The latter part of this guidance focuses on different steps of evidence integration, first within and then across different streams of evidence. With respect to risk characterisation, the guidance considers how evidence from human epidemiological studies can be used in dose-response modelling with several different options being presented. Finally, the guidance addresses the application of uncertainty factors in risk characterisation when using evidence from human epidemiological studies.

Can Weight of Evidence, Quantitative Bias, and Bounding Methods Evaluate Robustness of Real-world Evidence for Regulator and Health Technology Assessment Decisions on Medical Interventions?

PURPOSE

High-quality evidence is crucial for health care intervention decision-making. These decisions frequently use nonrandomized data, which can be more vulnerable to biases than randomized trials. Accordingly, methods to quantify biases and weigh available evidence could elucidate the robustness of findings, giving regulators more confidence in making approval and reimbursement decisions.

METHODS

We conducted an integrative literature review to identify methods for determining probability of causation, evaluating weight of evidence, and conducting quantitative bias analysis as related to health care interventions. Eligible studies were published from 2012 to 2021, applicable to pharmacoepidemiology, and presented a method that met our objective.

FINDINGS

Twenty-two eligible studies were classified into 4 categories: (1) quantitative bias analysis; (2) weight of evidence methods; (3) Bayesian networks; and (4) miscellaneous. All of the methods have strengths, limitations, and situations in which they are more well suited than others. Some methods seem to lend themselves more to applications of health care evidence on medical interventions than others.

IMPLICATIONS

To provide robust evidence for and improve confidence in regulatory or reimbursement decisions, we recommend applying multiple methods to triangulate associations of medical interventions, accounting for biases in different ways. This approach could lead to well-defined robustness assessments of study findings and appropriate science-driven decisions by regulators and payers for public health.

Methyl methacrylate and respiratory sensitisation: a comprehensive review

Methyl methacrylate (MMA) is classified under GHS as a weak skin sensitiser and a skin and respiratory irritant. It has recently been proposed that MMA be classified as a respiratory sensitiser (a designation that in a regulatory context embraces both true respiratory allergens, as well as chemicals that cause asthma through non-immunological mechanisms). This proposal was based primarily upon the interpretation of human data. This review, and a detailed weight of evidence analysis, has led to another interpretation of these data. The conclusion drawn is that persuasive evidence consistent with the designation of MMA as a respiratory sensitiser is lacking. It is suggested that one reason for different interpretations of these data is that occupational asthma poses several challenges with respect to establishing causation. Among these is that it is difficult to distinguish between allergic asthma, non-allergic asthma, and work-related exacerbation of pre-existing asthma. Moreover, there is a lack of methods for the identification of true chemical respiratory allergens. The characterisation and causation of occupational asthma is consequently largely dependent upon interpretation of human data of various types. Recommendations are made that are designed to improve the utility and interpretation of human data for establishing causation in occupational asthma.

A methodology for the automatic evaluation of data quality and completeness of nanomaterials for risk assessment purposes

This manuscript proposes a methodology to assess the completeness and quality of physicochemical and hazard datasets for risk assessment purposes. The approach is also specifically applicable to similarity assessment as a basis for grouping of (nanoforms of) chemical substances as well as for classification of the substances according to the Classification, Labeling and Packaging regulation. The unique goal of this approach is to assess data quality in such a way that all the steps are automatized, thus reducing reliance on expert judgment. The analysis starts from available (meta)data as provided in the data entry templates developed by the NanoSafety community and used for import into the eNanoMapper database. The methodology is implemented in the templates as a traffic light system-the providers of the data can see in real time the completeness scores calculated by the system for their datasets in green, yellow, or red. This is an interactive feedback feature that is intended to provide an incentive for anyone inserting data into the database to deliver more complete and higher quality datasets. The users of the data can also see this information both in the data entry templates and on the database interface, which enables them to select better datasets for their assessments. The proposed methodology has been partially implemented in the eNanoMapper database and in a Weight of Evidence approach for the regulatory classification of nanomaterials. It was fully implemented in a publicly available online R tool.

Development of the SciRAP Approach for Evaluating the Reliability and Relevance of in vitro Toxicity Data

Efficient and successful integration of data generated from non-animal test methods must rely on reliable and relevant data. It is important therefore to develop tools and criteria that facilitate scientifically sound, structured, and transparent evaluation of reliability and relevance of in vitro toxicity data to efficiently inform regulatory hazard and risk assessment. The Science in Risk Assessment and Policy (SciRAP) initiative aims to promote such overarching goals. We present the work to develop and refine the SciRAP tool for evaluation of reliability and relevance of in vitro studies for incorporation on the SciRAP web-based platform (www.scirap.org). In the SciRAP approach, reliability evaluation is based on criteria for reporting quality and methodological quality, and is explicitly separated from relevance evaluation. The SciRAP in vitro tool (version 1.0) was tested and evaluated during an expert test round (April 2019-September 2020) on three in vitro studies by thirty-one experts from regulatory authorities, industry and academia from different geographical areas and with various degree of experience in in vitro research and/or human health risk assessment. In addition, the experts answered an online survey to collect their feedback about the general features and desired characteristics of the tool for further refinement. The SciRAP in vitro tool (version 2.0) was revised based on the outcome of the expert test round (study evaluation and online survey) and consists of 24 criteria for evaluating "reporting quality" (reliability), 16 criteria for "methodological quality" (reliability), and 4 items for evaluating relevance of in vitro studies. Participants were generally positive about the adequacy, flexibility, and user-friendliness of the tool. The expert test round outlined the need to (i) revise the formulation of certain criteria; (ii) provide new or revised accompanying guidance for reporting quality and methodological quality criteria in the "test compounds and controls," "test system," and "data collection and analysis" domains; and (iii) provide revised guidance for relevance items, as general measures to reduce inter-expert variability. The SciRAP in vitro tool allows for a structured and transparent evaluation of in vitro studies for use in regulatory hazard and risk assessment of chemicals.

Does ozone inhalation cause adverse metabolic effects in humans? A systematic review

We utilized a practical, transparent approach for systematically reviewing a chemical-specific evidence base. This approach was used for a case study of ozone inhalation exposure and adverse metabolic effects (overweight/obesity, Type 1 diabetes [T1D], Type 2 diabetes [T2D], and metabolic syndrome). We followed the basic principles of systematic review. Studies were defined as "Suitable" or "Supplemental." The evidence for Suitable studies was characterized as strong or weak. An overall causality judgment for each outcome was then determined as either causal, suggestive, insufficient, or not likely. Fifteen epidemiologic and 33 toxicologic studies were Suitable for evidence synthesis. The strength of the human evidence was weak for all outcomes. The toxicologic evidence was weak for all outcomes except two: body weight, and impaired glucose tolerance/homeostasis and fasting/baseline hyperglycemia. The combined epidemiologic and toxicologic evidence was categorized as weak for overweight/obesity, T1D, and metabolic syndrome,. The association between ozone exposure and T2D was determined to be insufficient or suggestive. The streamlined approach described in this paper is transparent and focuses on key elements. As systematic review guidelines are becoming increasingly complex, it is worth exploring the extent to which related health outcomes should be combined or kept distinct, and the merits of focusing on critical elements to select studies suitable for causal inference. We recommend that systematic review results be used to target discussions around specific research needs for advancing causal determinations.

Quality assessment tools used in systematic reviews of in vitro studies: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) are commonly conducted to evaluate and summarize medical literature. This is especially useful in assessing in vitro studies for consistency. Our study aims to systematically review all available quality assessment (QA) tools employed on in vitro SRs/MAs.

METHOD

A search on four databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Virtual Health Library and Web of Science, was conducted from 2006 to 2020. The available SRs/MAs of in vitro studies were evaluated. DARE tool was applied to assess the risk of bias of included articles. Our protocol was developed and uploaded to ResearchGate in June 2016.

RESULTS

Our findings reported an increasing trend in publication of in vitro SRs/MAs from 2007 to 2020. Among the 244 included SRs/MAs, 126 articles (51.6%) had conducted the QA procedure. Overall, 51 QA tools were identified; 26 of them (51%) were developed by the authors specifically, whereas 25 (49%) were pre-constructed tools. SRs/MAs in dentistry frequently had their own QA tool developed by the authors, while SRs/MAs in other topics applied various QA tools. Many pre-structured tools in these in vitro SRs/MAs were modified from QA tools of in vivo or clinical trials, therefore, they had various criteria.

CONCLUSION

Many different QA tools currently exist in the literature; however, none cover all critical aspects of in vitro SRs/MAs. There is a need for a comprehensive guideline to ensure the quality of SR/MA due to their precise nature.

Lack of potential carcinogenicity for steviol glycosides - Systematic evaluation and integration of mechanistic data into the totality of evidence

Steviol glycosides are present in the leaves of the Stevia rebaudiana plant, have a sweet taste, and have been used as a sweetener for centuries. To build on previous authoritative safety assessments of steviol glycosides, a systematic assessment of mechanistic data related to key characteristics of carcinogens (KCCs) was conducted. Over 900 KCC-relevant endpoints from peer-reviewed literature and high-throughput screening data (ToxCast/Tox21) were identified across individual steviol glycosides and derivatives, metabolites, and whole leaf extracts. Most data (both in vivo and in vitro, including human cells), showed inactivity. Studies were weighted according to quality and relevance. Although data were available for eight of the ten KCC, genotoxicity, oxidative stress, inflammation, and cell proliferation/cell death represent the KCCs with the most data. The data for these KCC primarily show beneficial activity (anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, and anti-proliferative). Following integration across all data, and accounting for study quality and relevance, the totality of the evidence demonstrated an overall lack of genotoxic and carcinogenic activity for steviol glycosides. This is in agreement with previous regulatory decisions, and is consistent with the lack of tumor response in two-year rodent cancer bioassays. The findings support prior conclusions that steviol glycosides are unlikely to be carcinogenic in humans.

Development of a Range of Plausible Noncancer Toxicity Values for 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin Based on Effects on Sperm Count: Application of Systematic Review Methods and Quantitative Integration of Dose Response Using Meta-Regression

Regulatory agencies have derived noncancer toxicity values for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin based on reduced sperm counts relying on single studies from a large body of evidence. Techniques such as meta-regression allow for greater use of the available data while simultaneously providing important information regarding the uncertainty associated with the underlying evidence base when conducting risk assessments. The objective herein was to apply systematic review methods and meta-regression to characterize the dose-response relationship of gestational exposure and epididymal sperm count. Twenty-three publications (20 animal studies consisting of 29 separate rat experimental data sets, and 3 epidemiology studies) met inclusion criteria. Risk of bias evaluation was performed to critically appraise study validity. Low to very low confidence precluded use of available epidemiological data as candidate studies for dose-response due to inconsistencies across the evidence base, high risk of bias, and general lack of biological coherence, including lack of clinical relevance and dose-response concordance. Experimental animal studies, which were found to have higher confidence following the structured assessment of confidence (eg, controlled exposure, biological consistency), were used as the basis of a meta-regression. Multiple models were fit; points of departure were identified and converted to human equivalent doses. The resulting reference dose estimates ranged from approximately 4 to 70 pg/kg/day, depending on model, benchmark response level, and study validity integration approach. This range of reference doses can be used either qualitatively or quantitatively to enhance understanding of human health risk estimates for dioxin-like compounds.

Extrapolating the Applicability of Measurement Data on Worker Inhalation Exposure to Chemical Substances

Measured data are generally preferred to modelled estimates of exposure. Grouping and read-across is already widely used and accepted approach in toxicology, but an appropriate approach and guidance on how to use existing exposure measurement data on one substance and work situation for another substance and/or work situation is currently not available. This study presents a framework for an extensive read-across of existing worker inhalable exposure measurement data. This framework enables the calculation of read-across factors based on another substance and/or work situation by first evaluating the quality of the existing measurement data and then mapping its similarity or difference with another substance and/or work situation. The system of read-across factors was largely based on the determinants in ECETOC TRA and ART exposure models. The applicability of the framework and its proof of principle were demonstrated by using five case studies. In these case studies, either the 75th percentiles of measured exposure data was observed to lie within the estimated 90% confidence intervals from the read-across approach or at least with the increase in the geometric mean of measured exposure, geometric mean of estimated exposure also increased. Testing and re-evaluation of the present framework by experts in exposure assessment and statistics is recommended to develop it further into a tool that can be widely used in exposure assessment and regulatory practices.

Facilitation of risk assessment with evidence-based methods - A framework for use of systematic mapping and systematic reviews in determining hazard, developing toxicity values, and characterizing uncertainty

Systematic review tools and approaches developed for clinical medicine are often difficult to apply "off the shelf" in order to meet the needs of chemical risk assessments. To address such, we propose an approach that can be used by practitioners for using evidence-based methods to facilitate the risk assessment process. The framework builds on and combines efforts conducted to date by a number of agencies and researchers; the novelty is in combining these efforts with a practical understanding of risk assessment, and translating such into a 'step-by-step' guide. The approach relies on three key components: problem formulation, systematic evidence mapping, and systematic review, applied using a stepwise approach. Unique to this framework is the consideration of exposure in selecting, prioritizing, and evaluating data (e.g., dose-relevance, routes of exposure, etc.). Using the proposed step-by-step process, critical appraisal of individual studies (e.g., formal and structured assessment of both relevance and reliability) and integration efforts are considered in context of specified risk assessment objectives (e.g., mode of action, dose-response) as well as chemical-specific considerations. The resulting framework provides a logical approach of how evidence-based methods can be used to facilitate risk assessment, and elevates the use of systematic methods beyond hazard identification to directly facilitating transparent and objective selection of candidate studies and/or datasets used to quantitatively characterize risk, and to better use the underlying process to inform the approaches used to develop toxicity values.

Draft for internal testing Scientific Committee guidance on appraising and integrating evidence from epidemiological studies for use in EFSA's scientific assessments

EFSA requested its Scientific Committee to prepare a guidance document on appraising and integrating evidence from epidemiological studies for use in EFSA's scientific assessments. The guidance document provides an introduction to epidemiological studies and illustrates the typical biases of the different epidemiological study designs. It describes key epidemiological concepts relevant for evidence appraisal. Regarding study reliability, measures of association, exposure assessment, statistical inferences, systematic error and effect modification are explained. Regarding study relevance, the guidance describes the concept of external validity. The principles of appraising epidemiological studies are illustrated, and an overview of Risk of Bias (RoB) tools is given. A decision tree is developed to assist in the selection of the appropriate Risk of Bias tool, depending on study question, population and design. The customisation of the study appraisal process is explained, detailing the use of RoB tools and assessing the risk of bias in the body of evidence. Several examples of appraising experimental and observational studies using a Risk of Bias tool are annexed to the document to illustrate the application of the approach. This document constitutes a draft that will be applied in EFSA's assessments during a 1-year pilot phase and be revised and complemented as necessary. Before finalisation of the document, a public consultation will be launched.

Lack of potential carcinogenicity for sucralose - Systematic evaluation and integration of mechanistic data into the totality of the evidence

Sucralose is widely used as a sugar substitute. Many studies and authoritative reviews have concluded that sucralose is non-carcinogenic, based primarily on animal cancer bioassays and genotoxicity data. To add to the body of knowledge on the potential carcinogenicity of sucralose, a systematic assessment of mechanistic data was conducted. This entailed using a framework developed for the quantitative integration of data related to the proposed key characteristics of carcinogens (KCCs). Data from peer-reviewed literature and the ToxCast/Tox21 database were evaluated using an algorithm that weights data for quality and relevance. The resulting integration demonstrated an overall lack of activity for sucralose across the KCCs, with no "strong" activity observed for any KCC. Almost all data collected demonstrated inactivity, including those conducted in human models. The overall lack of activity in mechanistic data is consistent with findings from animal cancer bioassays. The few instances of activity across the KCC were generally accompanied by limitations in study design in the context of either quality and/or dose and model relevance, highlighted upon integration of the totality of the evidence. The findings from this comprehensive and integrative evaluation of mechanistic data support prior conclusions that sucralose is unlikely to be carcinogenic in humans.

A systematic literature review of fenugreek seed toxicity by using ToxRTool: evidence from preclinical and clinical studies

Fenugreek (Trigonella foenum graecum) seed extract is a bioactive ingredient of many food supplements. Hence, there is a need for systematic assessment of the quality of published toxicological studies for its use in human health, hazard consideration, and risk assessment. The aim of the present investigation was to determine the reliability of published toxicological studies of fenugreek seed by using ToxRTool (Toxicological data reliability assessment tool). A comprehensive systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CPCI-S, ICTRP, Ovid, and Google Scholar till October 2018. Each identified study was evaluated for its quality using the ToxRTool with outcomes such as combined score, weighted score, and reliability category by three independent raters. Correlations of various criteria groups with the combined score were evaluated by Pearson correlation and Kendall rank correlation coefficient. Inter-rater consistency was measured by Cronbach's alpha coefficient. The database searches initially yielded 436 results, of which 391 (89.67%) studies were “not assignable”. The remaining 45 studies were included for quantitative analysis by ToxRTool. Based on the weighted score, 17 in-vivo, and 3 in-vitro studies were determined to be “Reliable Without Restriction” which were conducted according to international guidelines such as GLP. These studies have a significant difference (p < 0.05) for the combined and weighted score as compared to non-GLP studies. Remaining 28 in-vivo and 2 in-vitro studies were determined to be “Not Reliable.” The GLP studies conducted with “identified study material” have a significant difference (p < 0.0001) between combined and weighted score as compared to studies which used “non-identified study material”. For criteria group of ToxRTool I, III and V, the Pearson correlation with the combined score was found to be 0.875, 0.734 and 0.905, respectively and Kendall rank correlation coefficient was found to be 0.764, 0.551 and 0.752, respectively. Cronbach's alpha coefficient for combined score and weighted score were 0.920 and 0.887, respectively. In conclusion, the ToxRTool was found useful to identify seventeen toxicity studies of fenugreek seeds as “Reliable without Restrictions”. These studies showed a broad margin of safety for the standardized extract of fenugreek seeds and can form a basis for toxicological risk assessment with reasonable certainty.

ExpoQual: Evaluating measured and modeled human exposure data

Recent rapid technological advances are producing exposure data sets for which there are no available data quality assessment tools. At the same time, regulatory agencies are moving in the direction of data quality assessment for environmental risk assessment and decision-making. A transparent and systematic approach to evaluating exposure data will aid in those efforts. Any approach to assessing data quality must consider the level of quality needed for the ultimate use of the data. While various fields have developed approaches to assess data quality, there is as yet no general, user-friendly approach to assess both measured and modeled data in the context of a fit-for-purpose risk assessment. Here we describe ExpoQual, an instrument developed for this purpose which applies recognized parameters and exposure data quality elements from existing approaches for assessing exposure data quality. Broad data streams such as quantitative measured and modeled human exposure data as well as newer and developing approaches can be evaluated. The key strength of ExpoQual is that it facilitates a structured, reproducible and transparent approach to exposure data quality evaluation and provides for an explicit fit-for-purpose determination. ExpoQual was designed to minimize subjectivity and to include transparency in aspects based on professional judgment. ExpoQual is freely available on-line for testing and user feedback (exposurequality.com).

Weight of Evidence for Hazard Identification: A Critical Review of the Literature

BACKGROUND

Transparency when documenting and assessing weight of evidence (WOE) has been an area of increasing focus for national and international health agencies.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this work was to conduct a critical review of WOE analysis methods as a basis for developing a practical framework for considering and assessing WOE in hazard identification in areas of application at the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety (ANSES).

METHODS

Based on a review of the literature and directed requests to 63 international and national agencies, 116 relevant articles and guidance documents were selected. The WOE approaches were assessed based on three aspects: the extent of their prescriptive nature, their purpose-specific relevance, and their ease of implementation.

RESULTS

Twenty-four approaches meeting the specified criteria were identified from selected reviewed documents. Most approaches satisfied one or two of the assessed considerations, but not all three. The approaches were grouped within a practical framework comprising the following four stages: (1) planning the assessment, including scoping, formulating the question, and developing the assessment method; (2) establishing lines of evidence (LOEs), including identifying and selecting studies, assessing their quality, and integrating with studies of similar type; (3) integrating the LOEs to evaluate WOE; and (4) presenting conclusions.

DISCUSSION

Based on the review, considerations for selecting methods for a wide range of applications are proposed. Priority areas for further development are identified. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP3067.

A quantitative screening-level approach to incorporate chemical exposure and risk into alternative assessment evaluations

As the general public and retailers ask for disclosure of chemical ingredients in the marketplace, a number of hazard screening tools were developed to evaluate the so-called "greenness" of individual chemical ingredients and/or formulations. The majority of these tools focus only on hazard, often using chemical lists, ignoring the other part of the risk equation: exposure. Using a hazard-only focus can result in regrettable substitutions, changing 1 chemical ingredient for another that turns out to be more hazardous or shifts the toxicity burden to others. To minimize the incidents of regrettable substitutions, BizNGO describes "Common Principles" to frame a process for informed substitution. Two of these 6 principles are: "reduce hazard" and "minimize exposure." A number of frameworks have emerged to evaluate and assess alternatives. One framework developed by leading experts under the auspices of the US National Academy of Sciences recommended that hazard and exposure be specifically addressed in the same step when assessing candidate alternatives. For the alternative assessment community, this article serves as an informational resource for considering exposure in an alternatives assessment using elements of problem formulation; product identity, use, and composition; hazard analysis; exposure analysis; and risk characterization. These conceptual elements build on practices from government, academia, and industry and are exemplified through 2 hypothetical case studies demonstrating the questions asked and decisions faced in new product development. These 2 case studies-inhalation exposure to a generic paint product and environmental exposure to a shampoo rinsed down the drain-demonstrate the criteria, considerations, and methods required to combine exposure models addressing human health and environmental impacts to provide a screening level hazard and exposure (risk) analysis. This article informs practices for these elements within a comparative risk context to improve alternatives assessment evaluation and decision making. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2017;13:1007-1022. © 2017 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).

Using systematic review in occupational safety and health

Evaluation of scientific evidence is critical in developing recommendations to reduce risk. Healthcare was the first scientific field to employ a systematic review approach for synthesizing research findings to support evidence-based decision-making and it is still the largest producer and consumer of systematic reviews. Systematic reviews in the field of occupational safety and health are being conducted, but more widespread use and adoption would strengthen assessments. In 2016, NIOSH asked RAND to develop a framework for applying the traditional systematic review elements to the field of occupational safety and health. This paper describes how essential systematic review elements can be adapted for use in occupational systematic reviews to enhance their scientific quality, objectivity, transparency, reliability, utility, and acceptability.

Framework for the quantitative weight-of-evidence analysis of 'omics data for regulatory purposes

A framework for the quantitative weight-of-evidence (QWoE) analysis of 'omics data for regulatory purposes is presented. The QWoE framework encompasses seven steps to evaluate 'omics data (also together with non-'omics data): (1) Hypothesis formulation, identification and weighting of lines of evidence (LoEs). LoEs conjoin different (types of) studies that are used to critically test the hypothesis. As an essential component of the QWoE framework, step 1 includes the development of templates for scoring sheets that predefine scoring criteria with scores of 0-4 to enable a quantitative determination of study quality and data relevance; (2) literature searches and categorisation of studies into the pre-defined LoEs; (3) and (4) quantitative assessment of study quality and data relevance using the respective pre-defined scoring sheets for each study; (5) evaluation of LoE-specific strength of evidence based upon the study quality and study relevance scores of the studies conjoined in the respective LoE; (6) integration of the strength of evidence from the individual LoEs to determine the overall strength of evidence; (7) characterisation of uncertainties and conclusion on the QWoE. To put the QWoE framework in practice, case studies are recommended to confirm the relevance of its different steps, or to adapt them as necessary.

Cleaning and asthma: A systematic review and approach for effective safety assessment

Research indicates a correlative relationship between asthma and use of consumer cleaning products. We conduct a systematic review of epidemiological literature on persons who use or are exposed to cleaning products, both in occupational and domestic settings, and risk of asthma or asthma-like symptoms to improve understanding of the causal relationship between exposure and asthma. A scoring method for assessing study reliability is presented. Although research indicates an association between asthma and the use of cleaning products, no study robustly investigates exposure to cleaning products or ingredients along with asthma risk. This limits determination of causal relationships between asthma and specific products or ingredients in chemical safety assessment. These limitations, and a lack of robust animal models for toxicological assessment of asthma, create the need for a weight-of-evidence (WoE) approach to examine an ingredient or product's asthmatic potential. This proposed WoE method organizes diverse lines of data (i.e., asthma, sensitization, and irritation information) through a systematic, hierarchical framework that provides qualitatively categorized conclusions using hazard bands to predict a specific product or ingredient's potential for asthma induction. This work provides a method for prioritizing chemicals as a first step for quantitative and scenario-specific safety assessments based on their potential for inducing asthmatic effects. Acetic acid is used as a case study to test this framework.

Effect of bisphenol A on reproductive processes: A review of in vitro, in vivo and epidemiological studies

As bisphenol A (BPA) is characterized by a pronounced influence on human hormonal regulation, particular attention has been aimed at understanding its role in reproductive processes in males and females, as well as on fetal development. Owing to the increasing number of alarming reports on the negative consequences of the presence of BPA in human surroundings, more and more studies are being undertaken to clarify the negative effects of BPA on human reproductive processes. The aim of this work was to collect and summarize data on the influence of BPA exposure on reproductive health. Based on an analysis of selected publications it was stated that there is strong proof confirming that BPA is an ovarian, uterine and prostate toxicant at a level below the lowest observed adverse effect level (50 mg kg^-1 bodyweight) as well as a level below the proposed safe level (4 μg kg^-1 bodyweight). It seems there is also reliable evidence in relation to the negative effect of BPA on sperm quality and motility. Limited evidence also pertains to the case of the potential of BPA to affect polycystic ovary syndrome occurrence. Although in epidemiological studies this disease was common, in studies on animal models such results were still not confirmed. No unambiguous results of epidemiological studies and with animal models were obtained in relation to the evaluation of associations between BPA and implantation failure in women, evaluation of associations between BPA and sexual dysfunction in men, and impact of BPA on birth rate, birth weight and length of gestation. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

A critical review of frameworks used for evaluating reliability and relevance of (eco)toxicity data: Perspectives for an integrated eco-human decision-making framework

Considerable efforts have been invested so far to evaluate and rank the quality and relevance of (eco)toxicity data for their use in regulatory risk assessment to assess chemical hazards. Many frameworks have been developed to improve robustness and transparency in the evaluation of reliability and relevance of individual tests, but these frameworks typically focus on either environmental risk assessment (ERA) or human health risk assessment (HHRA), and there is little cross talk between them. There is a need to develop a common approach that would support a more consistent, transparent and robust evaluation and weighting of the evidence across ERA and HHRA. This paper explores the applicability of existing Data Quality Assessment (DQA) frameworks for integrating environmental toxicity hazard data into human health assessments and vice versa. We performed a comparative analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of eleven frameworks for evaluating reliability and/or relevance of toxicity and ecotoxicity hazard data. We found that a frequent shortcoming is the lack of a clear separation between reliability and relevance criteria. A further gaps and needs analysis revealed that none of the reviewed frameworks satisfy the needs of a common eco-human DQA system. Based on our analysis, some key characteristics, perspectives and recommendations are identified and discussed for building a common DQA system as part of a future integrated eco-human decision-making framework. This work lays the basis for developing a common DQA system to support the further development and promotion of Integrated Risk Assessment.

Guidance on assessing the methodological and reporting quality of toxicologically relevant studies: A scoping review

Assessments of methodological and reporting quality are critical to adequately judging the credibility of a study's conclusions and to gauging its potential reproducibility. To aid those seeking to assess the methodological or reporting quality of studies relevant to toxicology, we conducted a scoping review of the available guidance with respect to four types of studies: in vivo and in vitro, (quantitative) structure-activity relationships ([Q]SARs), physico-chemical, and human observational studies. Our aims were to identify the available guidance in this diverse literature, briefly summarize each document, and distill the common elements of these documents for each study type. In general, we found considerable guidance for in vivo and human studies, but only one paper addressed in vitro studies exclusively. The guidance for (Q)SAR studies and physico-chemical studies was scant but authoritative. There was substantial overlap across guidance documents in the proposed criteria for both methodological and reporting quality. Some guidance documents address toxicology research directly, whereas others address preclinical research generally or clinical research and therefore may not be fully applicable to the toxicology context without some translation. Another challenge is the degree to which assessments of methodological quality in toxicology should focus on risk of bias - as in clinical medicine and healthcare - or be broadened to include other quality measures, such as confirming the identity of test substances prior to exposure. Our review is intended primarily for those in toxicology and risk assessment seeking an entry point into the extensive and diverse literature on methodological and reporting quality applicable to their work.

Stepwise Information-Filtering Tool (SIFT): A method for using risk assessment metadata in a nontraditional way

Tools exist to evaluate large ecotoxicity databases for risk assessment purposes, but these tools are less useful for alternative analytical purposes. In the present study, the authors developed the Stepwise Information-Filtering Tool (SIFT), a strategic method to select relevant, reliable data from a large ecotoxicity database; demonstrated utility in a case study of chronic toxicity data for statistical endpoint comparison purposes; and evaluated SIFT by comparison with 2 existing data evaluation methods.

The Global Landscape of Occupational Exposure Limits--Implementation of Harmonization Principles to Guide Limit Selection

Occupational exposure limits (OELs) serve as health-based benchmarks against which measured or estimated workplace exposures can be compared. In the years since the introduction of OELs to public health practice, both developed and developing countries have established processes for deriving, setting, and using OELs to protect workers exposed to hazardous chemicals. These processes vary widely, however, and have thus resulted in a confusing international landscape for identifying and applying such limits in workplaces. The occupational hygienist will encounter significant overlap in coverage among organizations for many chemicals, while other important chemicals have OELs developed by few, if any, organizations. Where multiple organizations have published an OEL, the derived value often varies considerably-reflecting differences in both risk policy and risk assessment methodology as well as access to available pertinent data. This article explores the underlying reasons for variability in OELs, and recommends the harmonization of risk-based methods used by OEL-deriving organizations. A framework is also proposed for the identification and systematic evaluation of OEL resources, which occupational hygienists can use to support risk characterization and risk management decisions in situations where multiple potentially relevant OELs exist.