1
|
Bui TT, Aasa J, Abass K, Ågerstrand M, Beronius A, Castro M, Escrivá L, Galizia A, Gliga A, Karlsson O, Whaley P, Yost E, Rudén C. Applying a modified systematic review and integrated assessment framework (SYRINA) - a case study on triphenyl phosphate. Environ Sci Process Impacts 2024; 26:380-399. [PMID: 38205707 PMCID: PMC10879963 DOI: 10.1039/d3em00353a] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/13/2023] [Accepted: 12/18/2023] [Indexed: 01/12/2024]
Abstract
This work presents a case study in applying a systematic review framework (SYRINA) to the identification of chemicals as endocrine disruptors. The suitability and performance of the framework is tested with regard to the widely accepted World Health Organization definition of an endocrine disruptor (ED). The endocrine disrupting potential of triphenyl phosphate (TPP), a well-studied flame retardant reported to exhibit various endocrine related effects was assessed. We followed the 7 steps of the SYRINA framework, articulating the research objective via Populations, Exposures, Comparators, Outcomes (PECO) statements, performed literature search and screening, conducted study evaluation, performed data extraction and summarized and integrated the evidence. Overall, 66 studies, consisting of in vivo, in vitro and epidemiological data, were included. We concluded that triphenyl phosphate could be identified as an ED based on metabolic disruption and reproductive function. We found that the tools used in this case study and the optimizations performed on the framework were suitable to assess properties of EDs. A number of challenges and areas for methodological development in systematic appraisal of evidence relating to endocrine disrupting potential were identified; significant time and effort were needed for the analysis of in vitro mechanistic data in this case study, thus increasing the workload and time needed to perform the systematic review process. Further research and development of this framework with regards to grey literature (non-peer-reviewed literature) search, harmonization of study evaluation methods, more consistent evidence integration approaches and a pre-defined method to assess links between adverse effect and endocrine activity are recommended. It would also be advantageous to conduct more case studies for a chemical with less data than TPP.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Thuy T Bui
- Department of Environmental Science, Stockholm University, Sweden.
| | | | - Khaled Abass
- Department of Environmental Health Sciences, College of Health Sciences, University of Sharjah, United Arab Emirates
- Sharjah Institute for Medical Research (SIMR), University of Sharjah, United Arab Emirates
- Research Unit of Biomedicine and Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oulu, Finland
| | | | | | - Mafalda Castro
- Section for Environmental Chemistry and Physics, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Laura Escrivá
- Laboratory of Food Chemistry and Toxicology, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Valencia, Spain
| | - Audrey Galizia
- United States Environmental Protection Agency, Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, USA
| | - Anda Gliga
- Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Sweden
| | - Oskar Karlsson
- Science for Life Laboratory, Department of Environmental Science, Stockholm University, Sweden
| | - Paul Whaley
- Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, UK
| | - Erin Yost
- United States Environmental Protection Agency, Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, USA
| | - Christina Rudén
- Department of Environmental Science, Stockholm University, Sweden.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Whaley P, Wattam S, Bedford C, Bell N, Harrad S, Jones N, Kirkbride T, Naldzhiev D, Payne E, Wooding EJ, Hull TR. Reconciling chemical flame retardant exposure and fire risk in domestic furniture. PLoS One 2023; 18:e0293651. [PMID: 38019785 PMCID: PMC10686510 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0293651] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/03/2023] [Accepted: 10/17/2023] [Indexed: 12/01/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Evidence suggests that standards for resistance of furniture to ignition may lead to an increase in use of chemical flame retardants (CFRs). This is motivating the development of new approaches that maintain high levels of fire safety while facilitating a reduction in use of CFRs. However, reconciling potential fire risk with use of CFRs in relation to specific policy objectives is challenging. OBJECTIVES To inform the development of a new policy in the UK for the fire safety of furniture, we developed for domestic furniture quantitative models of fire risk and potential for CFR exposure. We then combined the models to determine if any lower fire risk, higher CFR exposure categories of furniture were identifiable. METHODS We applied a novel mixed-methods approach to modelling furniture fire risk and CFR exposure in a data-poor environment, using literature-based concept mapping, qualitative research, and data visualisation methods to generate fire risk and CFR exposure models and derive furniture product rankings. RESULTS Our analysis suggests there exists a cluster of furniture types including baby and infant products and pillows that have comparable overall properties in terms of lower fire risk and higher potential for CFR exposure. DISCUSSION There are multiple obstacles to reconciling fire risk and CFR use in furniture. In particular, these include a lack of empirical data that would allow absolute fire risk and exposure levels to be quantified. Nonetheless, it seems that our modelling method can potentially yield meaningful product clusters, providing a basis for further research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paul Whaley
- Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom
- WhaleyResearch, Leuchars, Fife, United Kingdom
| | - Stephen Wattam
- W&P Academic Consultancy Limited, Northallerton, United Kingdom
| | - Clare Bedford
- Centre for Fire and Hazards Science, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, United Kingdom
| | - Nia Bell
- Oakdene Hollins, Aylesbury, United Kingdom
| | - Stuart Harrad
- School of Geography, Earth, and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
| | - Nicola Jones
- Centre for Fire and Hazards Science, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, United Kingdom
| | | | | | | | - Elli-Jo Wooding
- Centre for Fire and Hazards Science, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, United Kingdom
| | - T. Richard Hull
- Centre for Fire and Hazards Science, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Svendsen C, Whaley P, Vist GE, Husøy T, Beronius A, Consiglio ED, Druwe I, Hartung T, Hatzi VI, Hoffmann S, Hooijmans CR, Machera K, Robinson JF, Roggen E, Rooney AA, Roth N, Spilioti E, Spyropoulou A, Tcheremenskaia O, Testai E, Vinken M, Mathisen GH. Protocol for designing INVITES-IN, a tool for assessing the internal validity of in vitro studies. Evid Based Toxicol 2023; 1:1-15. [PMID: 38264543 PMCID: PMC10805239 DOI: 10.1080/2833373x.2023.2232415] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/09/2023] [Revised: 06/19/2023] [Accepted: 06/19/2023] [Indexed: 01/25/2024]
Abstract
This protocol describes the design and development of a tool for evaluation of the internal validity of in vitro studies, which is needed to include the data as evidence in systematic reviews and chemical risk assessments. The tool will be designed specifically to be applied to cell culture studies, including, but not restricted to, studies meeting the new approach methodology (NAM) definition. The tool is called INVITES-IN (IN VITro Experimental Studies INternal validity). In this protocol, three of the four studies that will be performed to create the release version of INVITES-IN are described. In the first study, evaluation of existing assessment tools will be combined with focus group discussions to identify how characteristics of the design or conduct of an in vitro study can affect its internal validity. Bias domains and items considered to be of relevance for in vitro studies will be identified. In the second study, group agreement on internal validity domains and items of importance for in vitro studies will be identified via a modified Delphi methodology. In the third study, the draft version of the tool will be created, based on the data on relevance and importance of bias domains and items collected in Studies 1 and 2. A separate protocol will be prepared for the fourth study, which includes the user testing and validation of the tool, and collection of users' experience.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Camilla Svendsen
- Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food and Environment, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway
- Department of Chemical Toxicology, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway
| | - Paul Whaley
- Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food and Environment, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway
- Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
| | - Gunn E. Vist
- Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food and Environment, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway
- Division for Health Services, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway
| | - Trine Husøy
- Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food and Environment, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway
- Department of Food Safety, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway
| | - Anna Beronius
- Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Emma Di Consiglio
- Environment & Health Department, Italian National Institute of Health (ISS), Rome, Italy
| | - Ingrid Druwe
- United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessments, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | - Thomas Hartung
- Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT), Johns Hopkins University, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
- CAAT Europe, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany
| | - Vasiliki I. Hatzi
- Laboratory of Toxicological Control of Pesticides, Scientific Directorate of Pesticides’ Control and Phytopharmacy, Benaki Phytopathological Institute, Kifissia, Greece
| | - Sebastian Hoffmann
- Evidence-Based Toxicology Collaboration (EBTC), Johns Hopkins University, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
- SEH consulting + services, Paderborn, Germany
| | - Carlijn R. Hooijmans
- Department of Anesthesiology, Pain and Palliative Care, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, Netherlands
| | - Kyriaki Machera
- Laboratory of Toxicological Control of Pesticides, Scientific Directorate of Pesticides’ Control and Phytopharmacy, Benaki Phytopathological Institute, Kifissia, Greece
| | - Joshua F. Robinson
- Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), CA, USA
| | - Erwin Roggen
- 3Rs Management and Consulting ApS, Lyngby, Denmark
| | - Andrew A. Rooney
- Division of Translational Toxicology, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | - Nicolas Roth
- Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
- Swiss Centre for Applied Human Toxicology (SCAHT), Basel, Switzerland
| | - Eliana Spilioti
- Laboratory of Toxicological Control of Pesticides, Scientific Directorate of Pesticides’ Control and Phytopharmacy, Benaki Phytopathological Institute, Kifissia, Greece
| | - Anastasia Spyropoulou
- Laboratory of Toxicological Control of Pesticides, Scientific Directorate of Pesticides’ Control and Phytopharmacy, Benaki Phytopathological Institute, Kifissia, Greece
| | - Olga Tcheremenskaia
- Environment & Health Department, Italian National Institute of Health (ISS), Rome, Italy
| | - Emanuela Testai
- Environment & Health Department, Italian National Institute of Health (ISS), Rome, Italy
| | - Mathieu Vinken
- Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussel, Belgium
| | - Gro H. Mathisen
- Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food and Environment, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Page J, Whaley P, Bellingham M, Birnbaum LS, Cavoski A, Fetherston Dilke D, Garside R, Harrad S, Kelly F, Kortenkamp A, Martin O, Stec A, Woolley T. A new consensus on reconciling fire safety with environmental & health impacts of chemical flame retardants. Environ Int 2023; 173:107782. [PMID: 36858883 DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2023.107782] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/21/2022] [Revised: 01/19/2023] [Accepted: 01/25/2023] [Indexed: 06/18/2023]
Abstract
Flame retardants are chemical substances that are intended to mitigate fire safety risks posed by a range of goods including furniture, electronics, and building insulation. There are growing concerns about their effectiveness in ensuring fire safety and the potential harms they pose to human health and the environment. In response to these concerns, on 13 June 2022, a roundtable of experts was convened by the UKRI Six Clean Air Strategic Priorities Fund programme 7. The meeting produced a Consensus Statement that summarises the issues around the use of flame retardants, laying out a series of policy recommendations that should lead to more effective fire safety measures and reduce the human and environmental health risks posed by these potentially toxic chemicals.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jamie Page
- The Cancer Prevention & Education Society, UK.
| | - Paul Whaley
- Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, UK.
| | - Michelle Bellingham
- School of Biodiversity, One Health and Veterinary Medicine, University of Glasgow, UK
| | - Linda S Birnbaum
- National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National Toxicology Program, Scholar in Residence, Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, USA
| | | | | | - Ruth Garside
- University of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, UK
| | - Stuart Harrad
- School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, UK
| | - Frank Kelly
- Faculty of Medicine, School of Public Health, Imperial College, London, UK
| | | | - Olwenn Martin
- Department of Arts and Sciences, University College London, UK
| | - Anna Stec
- Centre for Fire and Hazards Sciences, University of Central Lancashire, UK
| | - Tom Woolley
- Ecological Design Association Northern Ireland, NI, UK
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Whaley P, Roth N. How we promote rigour in systematic reviews and evidence maps at Environment International. Environ Int 2022; 170:107543. [PMID: 36280492 DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2022.107543] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/22/2022] [Accepted: 09/23/2022] [Indexed: 06/16/2023]
Abstract
In 2016, Environment International became the first environmental health journal to adopt specialist policies for handling systematic review (SR) submissions. This included the appointment of a dedicated editor of SRs, the use of the CREST_Triage tool for transparent and consistent enforcement of editorial standards for SRs, the acceptance of SR protocols as full manuscripts, and the extension of SR handling policies to systematic evidence maps as a novel evidence synthesis methodology. Our data on triage decisions for SR submissions, gathered via CREST_Triage, indicates several ways in which researchers are challenged by SR methods, including problem formulation, critical appraisal methods, and certainty assessment. We recommend that author teams invest in developing protocols as a means to de-risk SR projects, arguing that the benefits outweigh the potential increase in time it may take to complete the research project. Finally, we present evidence that reliance among environmental health journals on informal peer-review and editorial checks for standards compliance and quality control is insufficient for ensuring the rigour of SR publications. This emphasises the importance of specialist editors using triage instruments for the effective enforcement of standards. Observing that Environment International appears to be one of few journals implementing effective quality control measures for SR publications, we suggest that adoption of our SR policies by other journals may be beneficial to the field at large.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paul Whaley
- Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK; Evidence-Based Toxicology Collaboration at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, USA.
| | - Nicolas Roth
- Swiss Centre for Applied Human Toxicology (SCAHT), University of Basel, Missionsstrasse 64, 4055 Basel, Switzerland.
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Hoffmann S, Aiassa E, Angrish M, Beausoleil C, Bois FY, Ciccolallo L, Craig PS, De Vries RBM, Dorne JLCM, Druwe IL, Edwards SW, Eskes C, Georgiadis M, Hartung T, Kienzler A, Kristjansson EA, Lam J, Martino L, Meek B, Morgan RL, Munoz-Guajardo I, Noyes PD, Parmelli E, Piersma A, Rooney A, Sena E, Sullivan K, Tarazona J, Terron A, Thayer K, Turner J, Verbeek J, Verloo D, Vinken M, Watford S, Whaley P, Wikoff D, Willett K, Tsaioun K. Application of evidence-based methods to construct mechanism-driven chemical assessment frameworks. ALTEX 2022; 39:499–518. [PMID: 35258090 PMCID: PMC9466297 DOI: 10.14573/altex.2202141] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/14/2022] [Accepted: 02/28/2022] [Indexed: 11/23/2022]
Abstract
The workshop titled “Application of evidence-based methods to construct mechanism-driven chemical assessment frameworks” was co-organized by the Evidence-based Toxicology Collaboration and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and hosted by EFSA at its headquarters in Parma, Italy on October 2 and 3, 2019. The goal was to explore integration of systematic review with mechanistic evidence evaluation. Participants were invited to work on concrete products to advance the exploration of how evidence-based approaches can support the development and application of adverse outcome pathways (AOP) in chemical risk assessment. The workshop discussions were centered around three related themes: 1) assessing certainty in AOPs, 2) literature-based AOP development, and 3) integrating certainty in AOPs and non-animal evidence into decision frameworks. Several challenges, mostly related to methodology, were identified and largely determined the workshop recommendations. The workshop recommendations included the comparison and potential alignment of processes used to develop AOP and systematic review methodology, including the translation of vocabulary of evidence-based methods to AOP and vice versa, the development and improvement of evidence mapping and text mining methods and tools, as well as a call for a fundamental change in chemical risk and uncertainty assessment methodology if to be conducted based on AOPs and new approach methodologies (NAM). The usefulness of evidence-based approaches for mechanism-based chemical risk assessments was stressed, particularly the potential contribution of the rigor and transparency inherent to such approaches in building stakeholders’ trust for implementation of NAM evidence and AOPs into chemical risk assessment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sebastian Hoffmann
- Evidence-based Toxicology Collaboration (EBTC) at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Elisa Aiassa
- European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Parma, Italy
| | - Michelle Angrish
- United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | | | | | | | | | - Rob B M De Vries
- Evidence-based Toxicology Collaboration (EBTC) at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | | | - Ingrid L Druwe
- United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | | | - Chantra Eskes
- SeCAM, Magliaso, Switzerland.,current affiliation: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Parma, Italy
| | | | - Thomas Hartung
- Evidence-based Toxicology Collaboration (EBTC) at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.,CAAT-Europe, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany
| | - Aude Kienzler
- European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy.,current affiliation: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Parma, Italy
| | | | - Juleen Lam
- California State University, East Bay, CA, USA
| | | | | | - Rebecca L Morgan
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | | | - Pamela D Noyes
- United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | - Elena Parmelli
- European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy
| | - Aldert Piersma
- Centre for Health Protection (RIVM), Bilthoven, the Netherlands
| | - Andrew Rooney
- Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | | | - Kristie Sullivan
- Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, Washington, DC, USA
| | | | | | - Kris Thayer
- United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | | | - Jos Verbeek
- University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland
| | | | | | | | - Paul Whaley
- Evidence-based Toxicology Collaboration (EBTC) at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.,Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
| | | | - Kate Willett
- Humane Society International, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Katya Tsaioun
- Evidence-based Toxicology Collaboration (EBTC) at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Pega F, Momen NC, Bero L, Whaley P. Towards a framework for systematic reviews of the prevalence of exposure to environmental and occupational risk factors. Environ Health 2022; 21:64. [PMID: 35794579 PMCID: PMC9258093 DOI: 10.1186/s12940-022-00878-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/21/2022] [Accepted: 06/27/2022] [Indexed: 06/15/2023]
Abstract
Exposure prevalence studies (as here defined) record the prevalence of exposure to environmental and occupational risk factors to human health. Applying systematic review methods to the synthesis of these studies would improve the rigour and transparency of normative products produced based on this evidence (e.g., exposure prevalence estimates). However, a dedicated framework, including standard methods and tools, for systematically reviewing exposure prevalence studies has yet to be created. We describe the need for this framework and progress made towards it through a series of such systematic reviews that the World Health Organization and the International Labour Organization conducted for their WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates).We explain that existing systematic review frameworks for environmental and occupational health cannot be directly applied for the generation of exposure prevalence estimates because they seek to synthesise different types of evidence (e.g., intervention or exposure effects on health) for different purposes (e.g., identify intervention effectiveness or exposure toxicity or carcinogenicity). Concepts unique to exposure prevalence studies (e.g., "expected heterogeneity": the real, non-spurious variability in exposure prevalence due to exposure changes over space and/or time) also require new assessment methods. A framework for systematic reviews of prevalence of environmental and occupational exposures requires adaptation of existing methods (e.g., a standard protocol) and development of new tools or approaches (e.g., for assessing risk of bias and certainty of a body of evidence, including exploration of expected heterogeneity).As part of the series of systematic reviews for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates, the World Health Organization collaborating with partners has created a preliminary framework for systematic reviews of prevalence studies of exposures to occupational risk factors. This included development of protocol templates, data extraction templates, a risk of bias assessment tool, and an approach for assessing certainty of evidence in these studies. Further attention and efforts are warranted from scientific and policy communities, especially exposure scientists and policy makers, to establish a standard framework for comprehensive and transparent systematic reviews of studies estimating prevalence of exposure to environmental and occupational risk factors, to improve estimates, risk assessments and guidelines.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Frank Pega
- Department of Environment, Climate Change and Health, World Health Organization, Avenue Appia 20, 1202, Geneva, Switzerland.
| | - Natalie C Momen
- Department of Environment, Climate Change and Health, World Health Organization, Avenue Appia 20, 1202, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Lisa Bero
- General Internal Medicine/Public Health/Center for Bioethics and Humanities, University of Colorado-Anschutz Medical Campus, Denver, CO, USA
| | - Paul Whaley
- Lancaster Environment Center, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Menon JML, Struijs F, Whaley P. The methodological rigour of systematic reviews in environmental health. Crit Rev Toxicol 2022; 52:167-187. [DOI: 10.1080/10408444.2022.2082917] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/03/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- J. M. L. Menon
- Systematic Review Center for Laboratory Animal Experimentation, Department for Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - F. Struijs
- Systematic Review Center for Laboratory Animal Experimentation, Department for Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - P. Whaley
- Evidence-Based Toxicology Collaboration, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
- Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Whaley P, Piggott T, Morgan RL, Hoffmann S, Tsaioun K, Schwingshackl L, Ansari MT, Thayer KA, Schünemann HJ. Biological plausibility in environmental health systematic reviews: a GRADE concept paper. Environ Int 2022; 162:107109. [PMID: 35305498 DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2022.107109] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/20/2021] [Revised: 01/19/2022] [Accepted: 01/20/2022] [Indexed: 05/11/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND "Biological plausibility" is a concept frequently referred to in environmental and public health when researchers are evaluating how confident they are in the results and inferences of a study or evidence review. Biological plausibility is not, however, a domain of one of the most widely-used approaches for assessing the certainty of evidence (CoE) which underpins the findings of a systematic review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) CoE Framework. Whether the omission of biological plausibility is a potential limitation of the GRADE CoE Framework is a topic that is regularly discussed, especially in the context of environmental health systematic reviews. OBJECTIVES We analyse how the concept of "biological plausibility", as applied in the context of assessing certainty of the evidence that supports the findings of a systematic review, is accommodated under the processes of systematic review and the existing GRADE domains. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION We argue that "biological plausibility" is a concept which primarily comes into play when direct evidence about the effects of an exposure on a population of concern (usually humans) is absent, at high risk of bias, is inconsistent, or limited in other ways. In such circumstances, researchers look toward evidence from other study designs in order to draw conclusions. In this respect, we can consider experimental animal and in vitro evidence as "surrogates" for the target populations, exposures, comparators and outcomes of actual interest. Through discussion of 10 examples of experimental surrogates, we propose that the concept of biological plausibility consists of two principal aspects: a "generalisability aspect" and a "mechanistic aspect". The "generalisability aspect" concerns the validity of inferences from experimental models to human scenarios, and asks the same question as does the assessment of external validity or indirectness in systematic reviews. The "mechanistic aspect" concerns certainty in knowledge of biological mechanisms and would inform judgements of indirectness under GRADE, and thus the overall CoE. While both aspects are accommodated under the indirectness domain of the GRADE CoE Framework, further research is needed to determine how to use knowledge of biological mechanisms in the assessment of indirectness of the evidence in systematic reviews.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paul Whaley
- Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, UK; Evidence-based Toxicology Collaboration at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health (EBTC), USA
| | - Thomas Piggott
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, 1280 Main St West, Hamilton, ON L8N 3Z5, Canada
| | - Rebecca L Morgan
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, 1280 Main St West, Hamilton, ON L8N 3Z5, Canada
| | - Sebastian Hoffmann
- Evidence-based Toxicology Collaboration at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health (EBTC), USA
| | - Katya Tsaioun
- Evidence-based Toxicology Collaboration at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health (EBTC), USA
| | - Lukas Schwingshackl
- Institute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Mohammed T Ansari
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Room 101, 600 Peter Morand Crescent, Ottawa, Ontario K1G 5Z3, Canada
| | - Kristina A Thayer
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), Office of Research and Development, Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment (CPHEA), Chemical Pollutant Assessment Division (CPAD), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (8623R), Washington, DC 20460, USA
| | - Holger J Schünemann
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, 1280 Main St West, Hamilton, ON L8N 3Z5, Canada; Michael G DeGroote Cochrane Canada and McMaster GRADE Centres, McMaster University, HSC-2C, 1280 Main St West, Hamilton, ON L8N 3Z5, Canada; Dipartimento di Scienze Biomediche, Humanitas University, Via Rita Levi Montalcini, 4, 20090 Pieve Emanuele, Milan, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Frampton G, Whaley P, Bennett M, Bilotta G, Dorne JLCM, Eales J, James K, Kohl C, Land M, Livoreil B, Makowski D, Muchiri E, Petrokofsky G, Randall N, Schofield K. Principles and framework for assessing the risk of bias for studies included in comparative quantitative environmental systematic reviews. Environ Evid 2022; 11:1-23. [PMID: 38264537 PMCID: PMC10805236 DOI: 10.1186/s13750-022-00264-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/15/2021] [Accepted: 03/05/2022] [Indexed: 01/25/2024]
Abstract
The internal validity of conclusions about effectiveness or impact in systematic reviews, and of decisions based on them, depends on risk of bias assessments being conducted appropriately. However, a random sample of 50 recently-published articles claiming to be quantitative environmental systematic reviews found 64% did not include any risk of bias assessment, whilst nearly all that did omitted key sources of bias. Other limitations included lack of transparency, conflation of quality constructs, and incomplete application of risk of bias assessments to the data synthesis. This paper addresses deficiencies in risk of bias assessments by highlighting core principles that are required for risk of bias assessments to be fit-for-purpose, and presenting a framework based on these principles to guide review teams on conducting risk of bias assessments appropriately and consistently. The core principles require that risk of bias assessments be Focused, Extensive, Applied and Transparent (FEAT). These principles support risk of bias assessments, appraisal of risk of bias tools, and the development of new tools. The framework follows a Plan-Conduct-Apply-Report approach covering all stages of risk of bias assessment. The scope of this paper is comparative quantitative environmental systematic reviews which address PICO or PECO-type questions including, but not limited to, topic areas such as environmental management, conservation, ecosystem restoration, and analyses of environmental interventions, exposures, impacts and risks.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Geoff Frampton
- Southampton Health Technology Assessments Centre (SHTAC), Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Paul Whaley
- Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
- Evidence-Based Toxicology Collaboration at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, USA
| | - Micah Bennett
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Chicago, IL 60604, USA
| | - Gary Bilotta
- School of Environment and Technology, University of Brighton, Brighton, UK
| | - Jean-Lou C. M. Dorne
- Scientific Committee and Emerging Risks Unit, European Food Safety Authority, Via Carlo Magno 1A, 43121 Parma, Italy
| | - Jacqualyn Eales
- European Centre for Environment and Human Health, College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Knowledge Spa, Truro TR1 3HD, UK
| | - Katy James
- Centre for Evidence-Based Agriculture, Harper Adams University, Newport, Shropshire TF10 8NB, UK
| | - Christian Kohl
- Institute for Biosafety in Plant Biotechnology (SB), Julius Kühn Institute (JKI) - Federal Research Centre for Cultivated Plants, Berlin, Germany
| | | | | | - David Makowski
- UMR518, University Paris-Saclay, INRAE, AgroParistech, 16 rue Claude Bernard, 75231 Paris, France
| | - Evans Muchiri
- Centre for Anthropological Research, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa
| | - Gillian Petrokofsky
- Oxford Long-Term Ecology Lab, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Nicola Randall
- Centre for Evidence-Based Agriculture, Harper Adams University, Newport, Shropshire TF10 8NB, UK
| | - Kate Schofield
- Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC 20460, USA
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Wilkins AA, Whaley P, Persad AS, Druwe IL, Lee JS, Taylor MM, Shapiro AJ, Blanton Southard N, Lemeris C, Thayer KA. Assessing author willingness to enter study information into structured data templates as part of the manuscript submission process: A pilot study. Heliyon 2022; 8:e09095. [PMID: 35846467 PMCID: PMC9280381 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09095] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/06/2021] [Revised: 02/16/2022] [Accepted: 03/08/2022] [Indexed: 12/04/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Environmental health and other researchers can benefit from automated or semi-automated summaries of data within published studies as summarizing study methods and results is time and resource intensive. Automated summaries can be designed to identify and extract details of interest pertaining to the study design, population, testing agent/intervention, or outcome (etc.). Much of the data reported across existing publications lack unified structure, standardization and machine-readable formats or may be presented in complex tables which serve as barriers that impede the development of automated data extraction methodologies. As full automation of data extraction seems unlikely soon, encouraging investigators to submit structured summaries of methods and results in standardized formats with meta-data tagging of content may be of value during the publication process. This would produce machine-readable content to facilitate automated data extraction, establish sharable data repositories, help make research data FAIR, and could improve reporting quality. Objectives A pilot study was conducted to assess the feasibility of asking participants to summarize study methods and results using a structured, web-based data extraction model as a potential workflow that could be implemented during the manuscript submission process. Methods Eight participants entered study details and data into the Health Assessment Workplace Collaborative (HAWC). Participants were surveyed after the extraction exercise to ascertain 1) whether this extraction exercise will impact their conducting and reporting of future research, 2) the ease of data extraction, including which fields were easiest and relatively more problematic to extract and 3) the amount of time taken to perform data extractions and other related tasks. Investigators then presented participants the potential benefits of providing structured data in the format they were extracting. After this, participants were surveyed about 1) their willingness to provide structured data during the publication process and 2) whether they felt the potential application of structured data entry approaches and their implementation during the journal submission process should continue to be further explored. Conclusions Routine provision of structured data that summarizes key information from research studies could reduce the amount of effort required for reusing that data in the future, such as in systematic reviews or agency scientific assessments. Our pilot study suggests that directly asking authors to provide that data, via structured templates, may be a viable approach to achieving this: participants were willing to do so, and the overall process was not prohibitively arduous. We also found some support for the hypothesis that use of study templates may have halo benefits in improving the conduct and completeness of reporting of future research. While limitations in the generalizability of our findings mean that the conditions of success of templates cannot be assumed, further research into how such templates might be designed and implemented does seem to have enough chance of success that it ought to be undertaken.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A. Amina Wilkins
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment (CPHEA), Washington, DC, USA
- Corresponding author.
| | - Paul Whaley
- Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
- Evidence-Based Toxicology Collaboration, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA
| | - Amanda S. Persad
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment (CPHEA), Washington, DC, USA
| | - Ingrid L. Druwe
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment (CPHEA), Washington, DC, USA
| | - Janice S. Lee
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment (CPHEA), Washington, DC, USA
| | - Michele M. Taylor
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment (CPHEA), Washington, DC, USA
| | - Andrew J. Shapiro
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment (CPHEA), Washington, DC, USA
| | | | | | - Kristina A. Thayer
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment (CPHEA), Washington, DC, USA
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Verbeek JH, Whaley P, Morgan RL, Taylor KW, Rooney AA, Schwingshackl L, Hoving JL, Vittal Katikireddi S, Shea B, Mustafa RA, Murad MH, Schünemann HJ. Potential importance of residual confounding in systematic reviews of observational studies: Answer to Mathur and VanderTweele. Environ Int 2022; 160:107010. [PMID: 34952356 DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2021.107010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/25/2021] [Accepted: 11/29/2021] [Indexed: 06/14/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Jos H Verbeek
- Cochrane Work, Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
| | - Paul Whaley
- Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, UK
| | | | - Kyla W Taylor
- National Institute of Environment Health Science, United States
| | - Andrew A Rooney
- National Institute of Environment Health Science, United States
| | - Lukas Schwingshackl
- Medical Center, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Jan L Hoving
- Cochrane Work, Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
13
|
Hoffmann S, Whaley P, Tsaioun K. How evidence-based methodologies can help identify and reduce uncertainty in chemical risk assessment. ALTEX 2022; 39:175-182. [PMID: 35100433 DOI: 10.14573/altex.2201131] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/13/2022] [Accepted: 01/31/2022] [Indexed: 06/14/2023]
Abstract
Evidence-based methodology, in particular systematic review, is increasingly being applied in environmental, public, and occupational health to increase the transparency, comprehensiveness, and objectivity of the processes by which existing evidence is gathered, assessed, and synthesized in answering research questions. This development is also changing risk assessment practices and will impact the assessment of uncertainties in the evidence for risks to human health that are posed by exposure to chemicals. The potential of evidence-based methodology for characterizing uncertainties in risk assessment has been widely recognized, while its contribution to uncertainty reduction is yet to be fully elucidated. We therefore present some key aspects of the evidence-based approach to risk assessment, showing how they can contribute to the identification and the assessment of uncertainties. We focus on the pre-specification of an assessment methodology in a protocol, comprehensive search strategies, study selection using predefined eligibility criteria, critical appraisal of individual studies, and an evidence integration and uncertainty characterization process based on certainty of evidence frameworks that are well-established in health care research. We also provide examples of uncertainty in risk assessment and discuss how evidence-based methodology could address those. This perspective, which neither claims to be comprehensive nor complete, is intended to stimulate discussion of the topic and to motivate detailed exploration of how evidence-based methodology contributes to characterization of uncertainties, and how it will lead to uncertainty reduction in the conduct of health risk assessment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sebastian Hoffmann
- Evidence-based Toxicology Collaboration (EBTC) at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Paul Whaley
- Evidence-based Toxicology Collaboration (EBTC) at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
- Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, UK
| | - Katya Tsaioun
- Evidence-based Toxicology Collaboration (EBTC) at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Verbeek JH, Whaley P, Morgan RL, Taylor KW, Rooney AA, Schwingshackl L, Hoving JL, Vittal Katikireddi S, Shea B, Mustafa RA, Murad MH, Schünemann HJ. An approach to quantifying the potential importance of residual confounding in systematic reviews of observational studies: A GRADE concept paper. Environ Int 2021; 157:106868. [PMID: 34530289 DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2021.106868] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/22/2021] [Revised: 08/04/2021] [Accepted: 09/05/2021] [Indexed: 06/13/2023]
Abstract
Small relative effect sizes are common in observational studies of exposure in environmental and public health. However, such effects can still have considerable policy importance when the baseline rate of the health outcome is high, and many persons are exposed. Assessing the certainty of the evidence based on these effect sizes is challenging because they can be prone to residual confounding due to the non-randomized nature of the evidence. When applying GRADE, a precise relative risk >2.0 increases the certainty in an existing effect because residual confounding is unlikely to explain the association. GRADE also suggests rating up when opposing plausible residual confounding exists for other effect sizes. In this concept paper, we propose using the E-value, defined as the smallest effect size of a confounder that still can reduce an observed RR to the null value, and a reference confounder to assess the likelihood of residual confounding. We propose a 4-step approach. 1. Assess the association of interest for relevant exposure levels. 2. Calculate the E-value for this observed association. 3. Choose a reference confounder with sufficient strength and information and assess its effect on the observed association using the E-value. 4. Assess how likely it is that residual confounding will still bias the observed RR. We present three case studies and discuss the feasibility of the approach.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jos H Verbeek
- Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
| | - Paul Whaley
- Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, UK
| | | | - Kyla W Taylor
- National Institute of Environment Health Science, USA
| | | | - Lukas Schwingshackl
- Medical Center - University of Freiburg; Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Jan L Hoving
- Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
15
|
Pega F, Momen NC, Ujita Y, Driscoll T, Whaley P. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury. Environ Int 2021; 155:106605. [PMID: 34051644 PMCID: PMC8287588 DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2021.106605] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/19/2021] [Accepted: 04/24/2021] [Indexed: 05/05/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Frank Pega
- Department of Environment, Climate Change and Health, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
| | - Natalie C Momen
- Department of Environment, Climate Change and Health, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Yuka Ujita
- Labour Administration, Labour Inspection and Occupational Safety and Health Branch, International Labour Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Tim Driscoll
- Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Paul Whaley
- Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster, Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Kingdom; Editorial Office of Environment International, Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Whaley P, Blaauboer BJ, Brozek J, Cohen Hubal EA, Hair K, Kacew S, Knudsen TB, Kwiatkowski CF, Mellor DT, Olshan AF, Page MJ, Rooney AA, Radke EG, Shamseer L, Tsaioun K, Tugwell P, Wikoff D, Woodruff TJ. Improving the quality of toxicology and environmental health systematic reviews: What journal editors can do. ALTEX 2021; 38:513-522. [PMID: 34164697 DOI: 10.14573/altex.2106111] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/11/2021] [Accepted: 06/15/2021] [Indexed: 11/23/2022]
Abstract
Systematic reviews are fast increasing in prevalence in the toxicology and environmental health literature. However, how well these complex research projects are being conducted and reported is unclear. Since editors have an essential role in ensuring the scientific quality of manuscripts being published in their journals, a workshop was convened where editors, systematic review practitioners, and research quality control experts could discuss what editors can do to ensure the systematic reviews they publish are of sufficient scientific quality. Interventions were explored along four themes: setting standards; reviewing protocols; optimizing editorial workflows; and measuring the effectiveness of editorial interventions. In total, 58 editorial interventions were proposed. Of these, 26 were shortlisted for being potentially effective, and 5 were prioritized as short-term actions that editors could relatively easily take to improve the quality of published systematic reviews. Recent progress in improving systematic reviews is summarized, and outstanding challenges to further progress are highlighted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paul Whaley
- Evidence-based Toxicology Collaboration at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, USA,Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, United Kingdom
| | - Bas J Blaauboer
- Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences, div. of Toxicology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Jan Brozek
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University Health Sciences Centre, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Elaine A Cohen Hubal
- US EPA, Office of Research and Development, Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | - Kaitlyn Hair
- CAMARADES, University of Edinburgh, Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - Sam Kacew
- McLaughlin Centre for Risk Assessment, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | - Thomas B Knudsen
- US EPA, Office of Research and Development, Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | | | | | - Andrew F Olshan
- Department of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Matthew J Page
- School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Andrew A Rooney
- Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | - Elizabeth G Radke
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Larissa Shamseer
- Knowledge Translation Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Katya Tsaioun
- Evidence-based Toxicology Collaboration at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Peter Tugwell
- Department of Medicine and School of Epidemiology University of Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | | | - Tracey J Woodruff
- Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Sharma BM, Kalina J, Whaley P, Scheringer M. Towards guidelines for time-trend reviews examining temporal variability in human biomonitoring data of pollutants. Environ Int 2021; 151:106437. [PMID: 33626456 DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2021.106437] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/02/2020] [Revised: 01/29/2021] [Accepted: 01/30/2021] [Indexed: 05/21/2023]
Abstract
In the last few decades, a plethora of studies have focused on human biomonitoring (HBM) of chemical pollutants. Reviewing the copious HBM data reported in these studies is essential for evaluating the effectiveness of pollution management efforts, for example by evaluating time-trends. Nevertheless, guidance to systematically evaluate time trends in published HBM data has never been developed. In this study, we therefore present a proposal for guidelines to conduct "time-trend reviews" (TTRs) that examine time trends in published large HBM datasets of chemical pollutant concentrations. We also demonstrate the applicability of these guidelines through a case study that assesses time-trends in global and regional HBM data on mercury. The recommended TTR guidelines in this study are divided into seven steps: formulating the objective of the TTR, setting up of eligibility criteria, defining search strategy and screening of literature, screening results of search, extracting data, analysing data, and assessing certainty, including the potential for bias in the evidence base. The TTR guidelines proposed in this study are straightforward and less complex than those for conducting systematic reviews assessing datasets on potential human health effects of exposure to pollutants or medical interventions. These proposed guidelines are intended to enable the credible, transparent, and reproducible conduct of TTRs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Jiří Kalina
- RECETOX, Masaryk University, 62500 Brno, Czech Republic
| | - Paul Whaley
- Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YQ, United Kingdom
| | - Martin Scheringer
- RECETOX, Masaryk University, 62500 Brno, Czech Republic; Institute of Biogeochemistry and Pollutant Dynamics, ETH Zürich, 8092 Zürich, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Wolffe TAM, Vidler J, Halsall C, Hunt N, Whaley P. A Survey of Systematic Evidence Mapping Practice and the Case for Knowledge Graphs in Environmental Health and Toxicology. Toxicol Sci 2021; 175:35-49. [PMID: 32096866 PMCID: PMC7261145 DOI: 10.1093/toxsci/kfaa025] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/03/2023] Open
Abstract
Systematic evidence mapping offers a robust and transparent methodology for facilitating evidence-based approaches to decision-making in chemicals policy and wider environmental health (EH). Interest in the methodology is growing; however, its application in EH is still novel. To facilitate the production of effective systematic evidence maps for EH use cases, we survey the successful application of evidence mapping in other fields where the methodology is more established. Focusing on issues of “data storage technology,” “data integrity,” “data accessibility,” and “transparency,” we characterize current evidence mapping practice and critically review its potential value for EH contexts. We note that rigid, flat data tables and schema-first approaches dominate current mapping methods and highlight how this practice is ill-suited to the highly connected, heterogeneous, and complex nature of EH data. We propose this challenge is overcome by storing and structuring data as “knowledge graphs.” Knowledge graphs offer a flexible, schemaless, and scalable model for systematically mapping the EH literature. Associated technologies, such as ontologies, are well-suited to the long-term goals of systematic mapping methodology in promoting resource-efficient access to the wider EH evidence base. Several graph storage implementations are readily available, with a variety of proven use cases in other fields. Thus, developing and adapting systematic evidence mapping for EH should utilize these graph-based resources to ensure the production of scalable, interoperable, and robust maps to aid decision-making processes in chemicals policy and wider EH.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Taylor A M Wolffe
- Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YQ, UK.,Yordas Group, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YQ, UK
| | - John Vidler
- School of Computing and Communications, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4WA, UK
| | - Crispin Halsall
- Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YQ, UK
| | - Neil Hunt
- Yordas Group, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YQ, UK
| | - Paul Whaley
- Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YQ, UK.,Evidence-Based Toxicology Collaboration, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland 21205
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
De Vries RBM, Angrish M, Browne P, Brozek J, Rooney AA, Wikoff DS, Whaley P, Edwards SW, Morgan RL, Druwe IL, Hoffmann S, Hartung T, Thayer K, Avey MT, Beverly BEJ, Falavigna M, Gibbons C, Goyak K, Kraft A, Nampo F, Qaseem A, Sears M, Singh JA, Willett C, Yost EY, Schünemann H, Tsaioun K. Applying evidence-based methods to the development and use of adverse outcome pathways. ALTEX 2021; 38:336-347. [PMID: 33837437 DOI: 10.14573/altex.2101211] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/21/2021] [Accepted: 01/25/2021] [Indexed: 11/23/2022]
Abstract
The workshop “Application of evidence-based methods to construct mechanistic frameworks for the development and use of non-animal toxicity tests” was organized by the Evidence-based Toxicology Collaboration and hosted by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group on June 12, 2019. The purpose of the workshop was to bring together international regulatory bodies, risk assessors, academic scientists, and industry to explore how systematic review methods and the adverse outcome pathway framework could be combined to develop and use mechanistic test methods for predicting the toxicity of chemical substances in an evidence-based manner. The meeting covered the history of biological frameworks, the way adverse outcome pathways are currently developed, the basic principles of systematic methodology, including systematic reviews and evidence maps, and assessment of certainty in models, and adverse outcome pathways in particular. Specific topics were discussed via case studies in small break-out groups. The group concluded that adverse outcome pathways provide an important framework to support mechanism-based assessment in environmental health. The process of their development has a few challenges that could be addressed with systematic methods and automation tools. Addressing these challenges will increase the transparency of the evidence behind adverse outcome pathways and the consistency with which they are defined; this in turn will increase their value for supporting public health decisions. It was suggested to explore the details of applying systematic methods to adverse outcome pathway development in a series of case studies and workshops.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rob B M De Vries
- Evidence-Based Toxicology Collaboration (EBTC) at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.,SYRCLE, Department for Health Evidence, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Michelle Angrish
- United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessments, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | - Patience Browne
- Test Guidelines Programme, Environmental Directorate, OECD, Paris, France
| | - Jan Brozek
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Andrew A Rooney
- Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | | | - Paul Whaley
- Evidence-Based Toxicology Collaboration (EBTC) at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.,Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
| | | | - Rebecca L Morgan
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Ingrid L Druwe
- United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessments, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | - Sebastian Hoffmann
- Evidence-Based Toxicology Collaboration (EBTC) at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.,seh consulting + service, Paderborn, Germany
| | - Thomas Hartung
- Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT) at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Kristina Thayer
- United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessments, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | | | - Brandiese E J Beverly
- Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | - Maicon Falavigna
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.,National Institute for Health Technology Assessment, UFRGS, Porto Alegre, Brazil
| | - Catherine Gibbons
- United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessments, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | - Katy Goyak
- ExxonMobil Biomedical Sciences Inc., Annandale, NJ, USA
| | - Andrew Kraft
- United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessments, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | - Fernando Nampo
- Evidence-Based Public Health Research Group, Latin-American Institute of Life and Nature Sciences, Federal University of Latin-American Integration, Foz do Iguassu, Parana, Brazil
| | - Amir Qaseem
- Center for Evidence Reviews, The American College of Physicians, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Meg Sears
- Canadian Environmental Health Information Infrastructure, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | - Jasvinder A Singh
- Medicine Service, VA Medical Center, Birmingham, AL, USA; Department of Medicine at the School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), Birmingham, AL, USA; and Department of Epidemiology at the UAB School of Public Health, Birmingham, AL, USA
| | | | - Erin Y Yost
- United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessments, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | - Holger Schünemann
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.,McMaster GRADE Centre and Michael G DeGroote Cochrane Canada Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Katya Tsaioun
- Evidence-Based Toxicology Collaboration (EBTC) at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Whaley P, Edwards SW, Kraft A, Nyhan K, Shapiro A, Watford S, Wattam S, Wolffe T, Angrish M. Knowledge Organization Systems for Systematic Chemical Assessments. Environ Health Perspect 2020; 128:125001. [PMID: 33356525 PMCID: PMC7759237 DOI: 10.1289/ehp6994] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/03/2020] [Revised: 12/02/2020] [Accepted: 12/04/2020] [Indexed: 05/04/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Although the implementation of systematic review and evidence mapping methods stands to improve the transparency and accuracy of chemical assessments, they also accentuate the challenges that assessors face in ensuring they have located and included all the evidence that is relevant to evaluating the potential health effects an exposure might be causing. This challenge of information retrieval can be characterized in terms of "semantic" and "conceptual" factors that render chemical assessments vulnerable to the streetlight effect. OBJECTIVES This commentary presents how controlled vocabularies, thesauruses, and ontologies contribute to overcoming the streetlight effect in information retrieval, making up the key components of Knowledge Organization Systems (KOSs) that enable more systematic access to assessment-relevant information than is currently achievable. The concept of Adverse Outcome Pathways is used to illustrate what a general KOS for use in chemical assessment could look like. DISCUSSION Ontologies are an underexploited element of effective knowledge organization in the environmental health sciences. Agreeing on and implementing ontologies in chemical assessment is a complex but tractable process with four fundamental steps. Successful implementation of ontologies would not only make currently fragmented information about health risks from chemical exposures vastly more accessible, it could ultimately enable computational methods for chemical assessment that can take advantage of the full richness of data described in natural language in primary studies. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP6994.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paul Whaley
- Evidence Based Toxicology Collaboration, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
- Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
| | - Stephen W. Edwards
- GenOmics, Bioinformatics, and Translational Research Center, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA
| | - Andrew Kraft
- Chemical Pollutant Assessment Division, Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), Washington, DC, USA
| | - Kate Nyhan
- Environmental Health Sciences, Yale School of Public Health and Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
| | - Andrew Shapiro
- Chemical Pollutant Assessment Division, Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), Washington, DC, USA
| | - Sean Watford
- National Center for Computational Toxicology, U.S. EPA, Durham, North Carolina, USA
| | - Steve Wattam
- WAP Academy Consultancy Ltd, Thirsk, Yorkshire, UK
| | - Taylor Wolffe
- Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
| | - Michelle Angrish
- Chemical Pollutant Assessment Division, Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, U.S. EPA, Durham, North Carolina, USA
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Radke EG, Yost EE, Roth N, Sathyanarayana S, Whaley P. Application of US EPA IRIS systematic review methods to the health effects of phthalates: Lessons learned and path forward. Environ Int 2020; 145:105820. [PMID: 33081976 DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2020.105820] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/14/2020] [Accepted: 05/17/2020] [Indexed: 05/21/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Elizabeth G Radke
- US EPA Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC, United States.
| | - Erin E Yost
- US EPA Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Research Triangle Park, NC, United States
| | - Nicolas Roth
- Swiss Centre for Applied Human Toxicology, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
| | - Sheela Sathyanarayana
- University of Washington and Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, WA, United States
| | - Paul Whaley
- Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YQ, UK
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Whaley P, Aiassa E, Beausoleil C, Beronius A, Bilotta G, Boobis A, de Vries R, Hanberg A, Hoffmann S, Hunt N, Kwiatkowski CF, Lam J, Lipworth S, Martin O, Randall N, Rhomberg L, Rooney AA, Schünemann HJ, Wikoff D, Wolffe T, Halsall C. Recommendations for the conduct of systematic reviews in toxicology and environmental health research (COSTER). Environ Int 2020; 143:105926. [PMID: 32653802 DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2020.105926] [Citation(s) in RCA: 49] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/02/2019] [Revised: 05/26/2020] [Accepted: 06/21/2020] [Indexed: 05/21/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND There are several standards that offer explicit guidance on good practice in systematic reviews (SRs) for the medical sciences; however, no similarly comprehensive set of recommendations has been published for SRs that focus on human health risks posed by exposure to environmental challenges, chemical or otherwise. OBJECTIVES To develop an expert, cross-sector consensus view on a key set of recommended practices for the planning and conduct of SRs in the environmental health sciences. METHODS A draft set of recommendations was derived from two existing standards for SRs in biomedicine and developed in a consensus process, which engaged international participation from government, industry, non-government organisations, and academia. The consensus process consisted of a workshop, follow-up webinars, email discussion and bilateral phone calls. RESULTS The Conduct of Systematic Reviews in Toxicology and Environmental Health Research (COSTER) recommendations cover 70 SR practices across eight performance domains. Detailed explanations for specific recommendations are made for those identified by the authors as either being novel to SR in general, specific to the environmental health SR context, or potentially controversial to environmental health SR stakeholders. DISCUSSION COSTER provides a set of recommendations that should facilitate the production of credible, high-value SRs of environmental health evidence, and advance discussion of a number of controversial aspects of conduct of EH SRs. Key recommendations include the management of conflicts of interest, handling of grey literature, and protocol registration and publication. A process for advancing from COSTER's recommendations to developing a formal standard for EH SRs is also indicated.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paul Whaley
- Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YQ, UK.
| | - Elisa Aiassa
- European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Assessment and Methodological Support Unit, Via Carlo Magno 1/A, 43126 Parma, Italy.
| | - Claire Beausoleil
- ANSES (French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health Safety), Risk Assessment Department, Chemical Substances Assessment Unit, F-94700 Maisons-Alfort, France.
| | - Anna Beronius
- Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
| | - Gary Bilotta
- School of Environment and Technology, University of Brighton, Brighton, UK
| | - Alan Boobis
- National Heart & Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK.
| | - Rob de Vries
- SYRCLE, Department for Health Evidence, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
| | - Annika Hanberg
- Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
| | - Sebastian Hoffmann
- Evidence-based Toxicology Collaboration at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Paderborn, Germany.
| | - Neil Hunt
- Yordas Group, Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YQ, UK.
| | | | - Juleen Lam
- University of California, San Francisco and California State University, East Bay, 28500 Carlos Bee Blvd Room 502, Hayward, CA 94542, USA.
| | - Steven Lipworth
- Royal Society of Chemistry, Burlington House, Piccadilly, London W1J 0BA, UK
| | - Olwenn Martin
- Institute for the Environment, Health and Societies, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, UK.
| | | | | | - Andrew A Rooney
- Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, NC, USA.
| | - Holger J Schünemann
- McGRADE Centre and Michael G De Groote Cochrane Canada Centre, Dept. of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
| | - Daniele Wikoff
- ToxStrategies, 31 College Place, Suite B118B, Asheville, NC 28801, USA.
| | - Taylor Wolffe
- Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YQ, UK.
| | - Crispin Halsall
- Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YQ, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Wittwehr C, Blomstedt P, Gosling JP, Peltola T, Raffael B, Richarz AN, Sienkiewicz M, Whaley P, Worth A, Whelan M. Artificial Intelligence for chemical risk assessment. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2020; 13:100114. [PMID: 32140631 PMCID: PMC7043333 DOI: 10.1016/j.comtox.2019.100114] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/23/2019] [Revised: 09/10/2019] [Accepted: 11/25/2019] [Indexed: 02/03/2023]
Abstract
As the basis for managing the risks of chemical exposure, the Chemical Risk Assessment (CRA) process can impact a substantial part of the economy, the health of hundreds of millions of people, and the condition of the environment. However, the number of properly assessed chemicals falls short of societal needs due to a lack of experts for evaluation, interference of third party interests, and the sheer volume of potentially relevant information on the chemicals from disparate sources. In order to explore ways in which computational methods may help overcome this discrepancy between the number of chemical risk assessments required on the one hand and the number and adequateness of assessments actually being conducted on the other, the European Commission's Joint Research Centre organised a workshop on Artificial Intelligence for Chemical Risk Assessment (AI4CRA). The workshop identified a number of areas where Artificial Intelligence could potentially increase the number and quality of regulatory risk management decisions based on CRA, involving process simulation, supporting evaluation, identifying problems, facilitating collaboration, finding experts, evidence gathering, systematic review, knowledge discovery, and building cognitive models. Although these are interconnected, they are organised and discussed under two main themes: scientific-technical process and social aspects and the decision making process.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | - Barbara Raffael
- European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Italy
| | | | | | - Paul Whaley
- Lancaster Environment Centre, University Lancaster, UK.,The Evidence-based Toxicology Collaboration at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Andrew Worth
- European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Italy
| | - Maurice Whelan
- European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Wolffe TAM, Whaley P, Halsall C, Rooney AA, Walker VR. Systematic evidence maps as a novel tool to support evidence-based decision-making in chemicals policy and risk management. Environ Int 2019; 130:104871. [PMID: 31254867 PMCID: PMC7189619 DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2019.05.065] [Citation(s) in RCA: 38] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/28/2019] [Revised: 05/10/2019] [Accepted: 05/24/2019] [Indexed: 05/21/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND While systematic review (SR) methods are gaining traction as a method for providing a reliable summary of existing evidence for health risks posed by exposure to chemical substances, it is becoming clear that their value is restricted to a specific range of risk management scenarios - in particular, those which can be addressed with tightly focused questions and can accommodate the time and resource requirements of a systematic evidence synthesis. METHODS The concept of a systematic evidence map (SEM) is defined and contrasted to the function and limitations of systematic review (SR) in the context of risk management decision-making. The potential for SEMs to facilitate evidence-based decision-making are explored using a hypothetical example in risk management priority-setting. The potential role of SEMs in reference to broader risk management workflows is characterised. RESULTS SEMs are databases of systematically gathered research which characterise broad features of the evidence base. Although not intended to substitute for the evidence synthesis element of systematic reviews, SEMs provide a comprehensive, queryable summary of a large body of policy relevant research. They provide an evidence-based approach to characterising the extent of available evidence and support forward looking predictions or trendspotting in the chemical risk sciences. In particular, SEMs facilitate the identification of related bodies of decision critical chemical risk information which could be further analysed using SR methods, and highlight gaps in the evidence which could be addressed with additional primary studies to reduce uncertainties in decision-making. CONCLUSIONS SEMs have strong and growing potential as a high value tool in resource efficient use of existing research in chemical risk management. They can be used as a critical precursor to efficient deployment of high quality SR methods for characterising chemical health risks. Furthermore, SEMs have potential, at a large scale, to support the sort of evidence summarisation and surveillance methods which would greatly increase the resource efficiency, transparency and effectiveness of regulatory initiatives such as EU REACH and US TSCA.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Taylor A M Wolffe
- Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK; Yordas Group, Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
| | - Paul Whaley
- Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK; Evidence-Based Toxicology Collaboration, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA
| | - Crispin Halsall
- Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
| | - Andrew A Rooney
- Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | - Vickie R Walker
- Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Morgan RL, Beverly B, Ghersi D, Schünemann HJ, Rooney AA, Whaley P, Zhu YG, Thayer KA. GRADE guidelines for environmental and occupational health: A new series of articles in Environment International. Environ Int 2019; 128:11-12. [PMID: 31029974 PMCID: PMC6737525 DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2019.04.016] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/05/2019] [Accepted: 04/05/2019] [Indexed: 05/04/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Rebecca L Morgan
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C14, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada
| | - Brandy Beverly
- Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, P.O. Box 12233, Mail Drop K2-02, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
| | - Davina Ghersi
- Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, New South Wales 2006, Australia; National Health and Medical Research Council, 16 Marcus Clarke Street, Canberra City, ACT 2601, Australia
| | - Holger J Schünemann
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C14, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada; Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C14, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada.
| | - Andrew A Rooney
- Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, P.O. Box 12233, Mail Drop K2-02, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
| | - Paul Whaley
- Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YQ, UK
| | - Yong-Guan Zhu
- Environmental Soil Science and Biogeochemistry, Research Center for Eco-environmental Sciences, 18 Shuangqing Road, Haidian, Beijing 100085, China; Institute of Urban Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 1799 Jimei Road, Xiamen 361021, China
| | - Kristina A Thayer
- Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Division, National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA), Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, Building B (Room 211i), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, USA
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Hartung T, De Vries R, Hoffmann S, Hogberg HT, Smirnova L, Tsaioun K, Whaley P, Leist M. Toward Good In Vitro Reporting Standards. ALTEX 2019; 36:3-17. [PMID: 30633302 DOI: 10.14573/altex.1812191] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/19/2018] [Accepted: 12/19/2018] [Indexed: 11/23/2022]
Abstract
A good experiment reported badly is worthless. Meaningful contributions to the body of science are made by sharing the full methodology and results so that they can be evaluated and reproduced by peers. Erroneous and incomplete reporting does not do justice to the resources spent on conducting the experiment and the time peers spend reading the article. In theory peer-review should ensure adequate reporting - in practice it does not. Many areas have developed reporting standards and checklists to support the adequate reporting of scientific efforts, but in vitro research still has no generally accepted criteria. It is characterized by a "Wild West" or "anything goes" attitude. Such a culture may undermine trust in the reproducibility of animal-free methods, and thus parallel the "reproducibility crisis" discussed for other life science fields. The increasing data retrieval needs of computational approaches (in extreme as "big data" and artificial intelligence) makes reporting quality even more important so that the scientific community can take full advantage of the results. The first priority of reporting standards is to ensure the completeness and transparency of information provided (data focus). The second tier is a quality of data display that makes information digestible and easy to grasp, compare and further analyze (information focus). This article summarizes a series of initiatives geared towards improving the quality of in vitro work and its reporting. This shall ultimately lead to Good In Vitro Reporting Standards (GIVReSt).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Thomas Hartung
- Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT), Baltimore, MD, USA.,University of Konstanz, CAAT-Europe, Konstanz, Germany
| | - Rob De Vries
- SYRCLE (SYstematic Review Centre for Laboratory Animal Experimentation), Department for Health Evidence (section HTA), Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | | | - Helena T Hogberg
- Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT), Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Lena Smirnova
- Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT), Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Katya Tsaioun
- Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT), Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Paul Whaley
- Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
| | - Marcel Leist
- University of Konstanz, CAAT-Europe, Konstanz, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Morgan RL, Thayer KA, Santesso N, Holloway AC, Blain R, Eftim SE, Goldstone AE, Ross P, Ansari M, Akl EA, Filippini T, Hansell A, Meerpohl JJ, Mustafa RA, Verbeek J, Vinceti M, Whaley P, Schünemann HJ. A risk of bias instrument for non-randomized studies of exposures: A users' guide to its application in the context of GRADE. Environ Int 2019; 122:168-184. [PMID: 30473382 PMCID: PMC8221004 DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2018.11.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 147] [Impact Index Per Article: 29.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/14/2018] [Revised: 11/01/2018] [Accepted: 11/01/2018] [Indexed: 05/18/2023]
Abstract
The objective of this paper is to explain how to apply, interpret, and present the results of a new instrument to assess the risk of bias (RoB) in non-randomized studies (NRS) dealing with effects of environmental exposures on health outcomes. This instrument is modeled on the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) instrument. The RoB instrument for NRS of exposures assesses RoB along a standardized comparison to a randomized target experiment, instead of the study-design directed RoB approach. We provide specific guidance for the integral steps of developing a research question and target experiment, distinguishing issues of indirectness from RoB, making individual-study judgments, and performing and interpreting sensitivity analyses for RoB judgments across a body of evidence. Also, we present an approach for integrating the RoB assessments within the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework to assess the certainty of the evidence in the systematic review. Finally, we guide the reader through an overall assessment to support the rating of all domains that determine the certainty of a body of evidence using the GRADE approach.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rebecca L Morgan
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C14, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada.
| | - Kristina A Thayer
- Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Division, National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA), Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, Building B (Room 211i), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, USA.
| | - Nancy Santesso
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C14, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada.
| | - Alison C Holloway
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, McMaster University, Health Sciences Centre, Room 3N52A, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada.
| | - Robyn Blain
- ICF International Inc., 9300 Lee Highway, Fairfax, VA, USA.
| | - Sorina E Eftim
- ICF International Inc., 9300 Lee Highway, Fairfax, VA, USA.
| | | | - Pam Ross
- ICF International Inc., 9300 Lee Highway, Fairfax, VA, USA.
| | - Mohammed Ansari
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, ON K1H 8M5, Canada.
| | - Elie A Akl
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C14, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada; Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, American University of Beirut, P.O. Box: 11-0236, Riad-El-Solh Beirut 1107 2020, Lebanon.
| | - Tommaso Filippini
- Department of Biomedical, Metabolic and Neural Sciences, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Italy.
| | - Anna Hansell
- MRC-PHE Centre for Environment and Health, Imperial College London, St Mary's Campus, Praed St, Paddington, London W2 1PG, UK; Public Health Directorate, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, St Mary's Hospital, Paddington, London, W2 1PG, UK; Centre for Environmental Health and Sustainability, University of Leicester, George Davies Building, University Road, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK.
| | - Joerg J Meerpohl
- Institute for Evidence in Medicine (for Cochrane Germany Foundation), Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Breisacher Strasse 153, 79110 Freiburg, Germany.
| | - Reem A Mustafa
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C14, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada; Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Department of Medicine, University of Kansas Medical Center, 3901 Rainbow Boulevard, Kansas City, KS 66160, USA
| | - Jos Verbeek
- Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Cochrane Work, Neulaniementie 4, 70701 Kuopio, Finland.
| | - Marco Vinceti
- Department of Biomedical, Metabolic and Neural Sciences, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Italy; Department of Epidemiology, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
| | - Paul Whaley
- Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YQ, UK.
| | - Holger J Schünemann
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C14, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada; Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C14, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Morgan RL, Whaley P, Thayer KA, Schünemann HJ. Identifying the PECO: A framework for formulating good questions to explore the association of environmental and other exposures with health outcomes. Environ Int 2018; 121:1027-1031. [PMID: 30166065 PMCID: PMC6908441 DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2018.07.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 429] [Impact Index Per Article: 71.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/31/2018] [Revised: 06/02/2018] [Accepted: 07/07/2018] [Indexed: 05/18/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Rebecca L Morgan
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (Formerly the Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics) & Michael G. DeGroote Cochrane Canada Centre, McMaster University, Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C14, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada.
| | - Paul Whaley
- Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YQ, UK.
| | - Kristina A Thayer
- Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Division, National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA), Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, Building B (Room 211i), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, USA.
| | - Holger J Schünemann
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (Formerly the Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics) & Michael G. DeGroote Cochrane Canada Centre, McMaster University, Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C14, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada; Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C14, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Whaley P, Letcher RJ, Covaci A, Alcock R. Raising the standard of systematic reviews published in Environment International. Environ Int 2016; 97:274-276. [PMID: 27567414 DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2016.08.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/14/2016] [Accepted: 08/16/2016] [Indexed: 05/26/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Paul Whaley
- Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YQ, UK.
| | - Robert J Letcher
- Environment and Climate Change Canada, National Wildlife Research Centre, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | - Adrian Covaci
- Toxicological Centre, University of Antwerp, Universiteitsplein 1, 2610 Wilrijk, Belgium
| | - Ruth Alcock
- Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YQ, UK
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Vandenberg LN, Ågerstrand M, Beronius A, Beausoleil C, Bergman Å, Bero LA, Bornehag CG, Boyer CS, Cooper GS, Cotgreave I, Gee D, Grandjean P, Guyton KZ, Hass U, Heindel JJ, Jobling S, Kidd KA, Kortenkamp A, Macleod MR, Martin OV, Norinder U, Scheringer M, Thayer KA, Toppari J, Whaley P, Woodruff TJ, Rudén C. A proposed framework for the systematic review and integrated assessment (SYRINA) of endocrine disrupting chemicals. Environ Health 2016; 15:74. [PMID: 27412149 PMCID: PMC4944316 DOI: 10.1186/s12940-016-0156-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 74] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/04/2016] [Accepted: 06/17/2016] [Indexed: 05/07/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The issue of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) is receiving wide attention from both the scientific and regulatory communities. Recent analyses of the EDC literature have been criticized for failing to use transparent and objective approaches to draw conclusions about the strength of evidence linking EDC exposures to adverse health or environmental outcomes. Systematic review methodologies are ideal for addressing this issue as they provide transparent and consistent approaches to study selection and evaluation. Objective methods are needed for integrating the multiple streams of evidence (epidemiology, wildlife, laboratory animal, in vitro, and in silico data) that are relevant in assessing EDCs. METHODS We have developed a framework for the systematic review and integrated assessment (SYRINA) of EDC studies. The framework was designed for use with the International Program on Chemical Safety (IPCS) and World Health Organization (WHO) definition of an EDC, which requires appraisal of evidence regarding 1) association between exposure and an adverse effect, 2) association between exposure and endocrine disrupting activity, and 3) a plausible link between the adverse effect and the endocrine disrupting activity. RESULTS Building from existing methodologies for evaluating and synthesizing evidence, the SYRINA framework includes seven steps: 1) Formulate the problem; 2) Develop the review protocol; 3) Identify relevant evidence; 4) Evaluate evidence from individual studies; 5) Summarize and evaluate each stream of evidence; 6) Integrate evidence across all streams; 7) Draw conclusions, make recommendations, and evaluate uncertainties. The proposed method is tailored to the IPCS/WHO definition of an EDC but offers flexibility for use in the context of other definitions of EDCs. CONCLUSIONS When using the SYRINA framework, the overall objective is to provide the evidence base needed to support decision making, including any action to avoid/minimise potential adverse effects of exposures. This framework allows for the evaluation and synthesis of evidence from multiple evidence streams. Finally, a decision regarding regulatory action is not only dependent on the strength of evidence, but also the consequences of action/inaction, e.g. limited or weak evidence may be sufficient to justify action if consequences are serious or irreversible.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Laura N. Vandenberg
- />Department of Environmental Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Amherst School of Public Health & Health Sciences, Amherst, MA USA
| | - Marlene Ågerstrand
- />Department of Environmental Science and Analytical Chemistry, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Anna Beronius
- />Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Claire Beausoleil
- />ANSES (French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health Safety), Maisons Alfort, France
| | - Åke Bergman
- />Department of Environmental Science and Analytical Chemistry, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
- />Swedish Toxicology Sciences Research Center, Södertälje, Sweden
| | - Lisa A. Bero
- />Charles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Carl-Gustaf Bornehag
- />Department of health sciences, Karlstad University, Karlstad, Sweden
- />Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, USA
| | - C. Scott Boyer
- />Swedish Toxicology Sciences Research Center, Södertälje, Sweden
| | | | - Ian Cotgreave
- />Swedish Toxicology Sciences Research Center (Swetox), Karolinska Institutet, Södertälje, Sweden
| | - David Gee
- />Institute of Environment, Health and Societies, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, UK
| | - Philippe Grandjean
- />Department of Environmental Medicine, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
| | | | - Ulla Hass
- />National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Søborg, Denmark
| | - Jerrold J. Heindel
- />National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Division of Extramural Research and Training, Research Triangle Park, NC USA
| | - Susan Jobling
- />Institute of Environment, Health and Societies, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, UK
| | - Karen A. Kidd
- />Biology Department and Canadian Rivers Institute, University of New Brunswick, Saint John, New Brunswick Canada
| | - Andreas Kortenkamp
- />Institute of Environment, Health and Societies, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, UK
| | - Malcolm R. Macleod
- />Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
| | - Olwenn V. Martin
- />Institute of Environment, Health and Societies, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, UK
| | - Ulf Norinder
- />Swedish Toxicology Sciences Research Center, Södertälje, Sweden
| | - Martin Scheringer
- />Institute for Chemical and Bioengineering, ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
| | - Kristina A. Thayer
- />Department of Health and Human Services, Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Research Triangle Park, NC USA
| | - Jorma Toppari
- />University of Turku, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland
| | - Paul Whaley
- />Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
| | - Tracey J. Woodruff
- />School of Medicine, Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment, University of California, San Francisco, Oakland, CA USA
| | - Christina Rudén
- />Department of Environmental Science and Analytical Chemistry, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
Whaley P, Halsall C. Assuring high-quality evidence reviews for chemical risk assessment: Five lessons from guest editing the first environmental health journal special issue dedicated to systematic review. Environ Int 2016; 92-93:553-555. [PMID: 27133460 DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2016.04.016] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/11/2016] [Accepted: 04/12/2016] [Indexed: 06/05/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Paul Whaley
- Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YQ, UK
| | - Crispin Halsall
- Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YQ, UK
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Whaley P, Halsall C, Ågerstrand M, Aiassa E, Benford D, Bilotta G, Coggon D, Collins C, Dempsey C, Duarte-Davidson R, FitzGerald R, Galay-Burgos M, Gee D, Hoffmann S, Lam J, Lasserson T, Levy L, Lipworth S, Ross SM, Martin O, Meads C, Meyer-Baron M, Miller J, Pease C, Rooney A, Sapiets A, Stewart G, Taylor D. Implementing systematic review techniques in chemical risk assessment: Challenges, opportunities and recommendations. Environ Int 2016; 92-93:556-64. [PMID: 26687863 PMCID: PMC4881816 DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2015.11.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 50] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/08/2015] [Accepted: 11/02/2015] [Indexed: 05/08/2023]
Abstract
Systematic review (SR) is a rigorous, protocol-driven approach designed to minimise error and bias when summarising the body of research evidence relevant to a specific scientific question. Taking as a comparator the use of SR in synthesising research in healthcare, we argue that SR methods could also pave the way for a "step change" in the transparency, objectivity and communication of chemical risk assessments (CRA) in Europe and elsewhere. We suggest that current controversies around the safety of certain chemicals are partly due to limitations in current CRA procedures which have contributed to ambiguity about the health risks posed by these substances. We present an overview of how SR methods can be applied to the assessment of risks from chemicals, and indicate how challenges in adapting SR methods from healthcare research to the CRA context might be overcome. Regarding the latter, we report the outcomes from a workshop exploring how to increase uptake of SR methods, attended by experts representing a wide range of fields related to chemical toxicology, risk analysis and SR. Priorities which were identified include: the conduct of CRA-focused prototype SRs; the development of a recognised standard of reporting and conduct for SRs in toxicology and CRA; and establishing a network to facilitate research, communication and training in SR methods. We see this paper as a milestone in the creation of a research climate that fosters communication between experts in CRA and SR and facilitates wider uptake of SR methods into CRA.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paul Whaley
- Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YQ, UK
| | - Crispin Halsall
- Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YQ, UK.
| | - Marlene Ågerstrand
- Department of Environmental Science and Analytical Chemistry, Stockholm University, SE-106 91, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Elisa Aiassa
- Assessment and Methodological Support Unit, European Food Safety Authority, Via Carlo Magno 1/a 43126, Parma, Italy
| | - Diane Benford
- Food Standards Agency, Aviation House, 125 Kingsway, London WC2B 6NH, UK
| | - Gary Bilotta
- Aquatic Research Centre, University of Brighton, Lewes Road, Brighton BN2 4GJ, UK
| | - David Coggon
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton SO16 6YD, UK
| | - Chris Collins
- Department of Geography and Environmental Science, School of Archaeology, Geography and Environmental Science, University of Reading, Reading, RG6 6DW, United Kingdom
| | - Ciara Dempsey
- Royal Society of Chemistry, Burlington House, Piccadilly, London W1J 0BA, UK
| | - Raquel Duarte-Davidson
- Centre for Radiation, Chemicals and Environmental Hazards, Public Health England, Harwell Science and Innovation Campus, Didcot, Oxfordshire OX11 0RQ, UK
| | - Rex FitzGerald
- Swiss Centre for Applied Human Toxicology, University of Basel, Missionsstrasse 64, 4055 Basel, Switzerland
| | - Malyka Galay-Burgos
- European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals (ECETOC), Avenue Edmond Van Nieuwenhuyse 2 Bte 8B-1160 Brussels, Belgium
| | - David Gee
- Institute for the Environment, Health and Societies, Brunel University London, Kingston Lane, Uxbridge UB8 3PH, UK
| | - Sebastian Hoffmann
- Evidence-Based Toxicology Collaboration (EBTC), Stembergring 15, 33106 Paderborn, Germany
| | - Juleen Lam
- University of California San Francisco, Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Toby Lasserson
- Cochrane Editorial Unit, Cochrane Central Executive, St Albans House, 57-9 Haymarket, London SW1Y 4QX, UK
| | - Len Levy
- Institute of Environment, Health, Risks and Futures, School of Energy, Environment and Agrifood, Cranfield University, Cranfield, Bedfordshire MK43 0AL, UK
| | - Steven Lipworth
- Royal Society of Chemistry, Burlington House, Piccadilly, London W1J 0BA, UK
| | - Sarah Mackenzie Ross
- Research Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK
| | - Olwenn Martin
- Institute for the Environment, Health and Societies, Brunel University London, Kingston Lane, Uxbridge UB8 3PH, UK
| | - Catherine Meads
- Health Economics Research Group, Brunel University London, Kingston Lane, Uxbridge UB8 3PH, UK
| | - Monika Meyer-Baron
- Leibniz Research Centre for Working Environment and Human Factors (IfADo), Neurobehavioural Toxicology, Ardeystr 67, D-44139 Dortmund, Germany
| | - James Miller
- Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Wallingford, Oxfordshire 0X10 8BB, UK
| | - Camilla Pease
- Ramboll Environ, 1 Broad Gate, The Headrow, Leeds LS1 8EQ, UK
| | - Andrew Rooney
- National Institute of Environmental Sciences (NIEHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | - Alison Sapiets
- Syngenta Ltd., Jealott's Hill International Research Centre, Bracknell RG42 6EY, UK
| | - Gavin Stewart
- Centre for Rural Economy, School of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - David Taylor
- Royal Society of Chemistry, Burlington House, Piccadilly, London W1J 0BA, UK
| |
Collapse
|
33
|
Geiger CM, Sorenson B, Whaley P. Stability Assessment of 10 Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients Compounded in SyrSpend SF. Int J Pharm Compd 2015; 19:420-427. [PMID: 26775449] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/05/2023]
Abstract
The stability of 10 active pharmaceutical ingredients was studied in SyrSpend SF PH4 or SyrSpend SF Alka at room and/or refrigerated temperature (2°C to 8°C). An oral suspension of each active pharmaceutical ingredient was compounded in low actinic plastic bottles at a specific concentration in SyrSpend SF PH4 or SyrSpend SF Alka. Samples were assessed for stability immediately after preparation (day 0) followed by storage at room temperature and/or at refrigerated temperature. At set time points, the samples were removed from storage and assayed using a high-performance liquid chromatographic stability- indicating method. The active pharmaceutical ingredient was considered stable if the suspension retained 90% to 110% of the initial concentration. Furosemide was stable for at least 14 days in SyrSpend SF Alka at refrigerated conditions. Prednisolone sodium phosphate in SyrSpend SF PH4 was stable for at least 30 days at room temperature and refrigerated conditions. Ranitidine hydrochloride suspensions in SyrSpend SF PH4 at room temperature and refrigerated conditions were stable for at least 30 days and 58 days, respectively. Hydrocortisone hemisuccinate and sodium phosphate retained greater than 90% for at least 60 days at both room temperature and refrigerated samples in SyrSpend SF PH4. Amiodarone hydrochloride and nifedipine suspensions at both room temperature and refrigerated conditions retained greater than 90% of the initial concentrations for at least 90 days in SyrSpend SF PH4. Refrigerated samples of simvastatin in SyrSpend SF PH4 were stable for at least 90 days. Spironolactone in SyrSpend SF PH4 at room temperature retained more than 90% of the initial concentration for at least 90 days. Phenobarbital in SyrSpend SF PH4 retained above 90% of initial concentration for at least 154 days at room temperature. This study demonstrated the stability of a wide range of frequently used active pharmaceutical ingredients, tested in SyrSpend SF PH4 and SyrSpend SF Alka at different storage conditions.
Collapse
|
34
|
Whaley P, Halsall C. A novel toolkit for appraising the methodological quality of literature reviews in the toxicological sciences. Toxicol Lett 2014. [DOI: 10.1016/j.toxlet.2014.06.448] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
|
35
|
Sorenson B, Whaley P. Stability of rifampin in SyrSpend SF. Int J Pharm Compd 2013; 17:162-164. [PMID: 23696177] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/02/2023]
Abstract
Rifampin is a bactericidal antibiotic drug of the rifamycin group. It is a semisynthetic drug produced from the bacterium Streptomyces mediterranei. Rifampin is commonly manufactured in capsule, tablet, and syrup dosage solutions containing alcohol or sorbitol. The objective of this study was to determine the stability of rifampin in SyrSpend SF. The studied samples were compounded into 25-mg/mL suspensions and stored in low-actinic bottles at room temperature and refrigerated conditions. Samples were assayed at each time point out to 60 days by a stability-indicating high-performance liquid chromatography method. The method was validated for its specificity through forced-degradation studies. The sample remained within 90% to 110% of the initial concentration throughout the course of the study. Based on data collected, the beyond-use date of the preparation is at least 60 days when refrigerated or stored at room temperature and protected from light.
Collapse
|
36
|
Johnson D, Whaley P, Dorman MF. Processing of cues for stop consonant voicing by young hearing-impaired listeners. J Speech Hear Res 1984; 27:112-118. [PMID: 6716995 DOI: 10.1044/jshr.2701.112] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/21/2023]
Abstract
To assess whether young hearing-impaired listeners are as sensitive as normal-hearing children to the cues for stop consonant voicing, we presented stimuli from along VOT continua to young normal-hearing listeners and to listeners with mild, moderate, severe, and profound hearing impairments. The response measures were the location of the phonetic boundaries, the change in boundaries with changes in place of articulation, and response variability. The listeners with normal hearing sensitivity and those with mild and moderate hearing impairments did not differ in performance on any response measure. The listeners with severe impairments did not show the expected change in VOT boundary with changes in place of articulation. Moreover, stimulus uncertainty (i.e., the number of possible choices in the response set) affected their response variability. One listener with profound impairment was able to process the cues for voicing in a normal fashion under conditions of minimum stimulus uncertainty. We infer from these results that the cochlear damage which underlies mild and moderate hearing impairment does not significantly alter the auditory representation of VOT. However, the cochlear damage underlying severe impairment, possibly interacting with high signal presentation levels, does alter the auditory representation of VOT.
Collapse
|
37
|
Parady S, Dorman MF, Whaley P, Raphael LJ. Identification and discrimination of a synthesized voicing contrast by normal and sensorineural hearing-impaired children. J Acoust Soc Am 1981; 69:783-790. [PMID: 7240559 DOI: 10.1121/1.385589] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/21/2023]
Abstract
The identification and discrimination of a stop-consonant voicing contrast (/da/--/ta/) was assessed in children and adolescents who had moderate, severe, and profound sensorineural hearing losses. The location of the perceptual boundary between /da/ and /ta/ did not differ between normal listeners and listeners with moderate losses. Of the ten listeners with severe losses, five evidenced normal boundaries, three evidenced longer-than-normal boundaries, and two could not identify the stimuli at all. Of the three listeners with profound hearing losses, one could identify normally, and two could not identify at all. For the most part, discrimination data mirrored identification data. However, in some instances listeners were able to discriminate between stimuli they could not differentially identify. These subjects appeared to have the auditory capacity to resolve differences in voice-onset-time but could not use this capacity to make phonetic identification.
Collapse
|
38
|
Whaley P. Two home births. Aust Nurses J 1978; 8:41-4, 47. [PMID: 250419] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [MESH Headings] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
|
39
|
|