Systematic evidence maps as a novel tool to support evidence-based decision-making in chemicals policy and risk management

被引:73
|
作者
Wolffe, Taylor A. M. [1 ,2 ]
Whaley, Paul [1 ,4 ]
Halsall, Crispin [1 ]
Rooney, Andrew A. [3 ]
Walker, Vickie R. [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Lancaster, Lancaster Environm Ctr, Lancaster, England
[2] Univ Lancaster, Lancaster Environm Ctr, Yordas Grp, Lancaster, England
[3] NIEHS, Div Natl Toxicol Program, NIH, POB 12233, Res Triangle Pk, NC 27709 USA
[4] Johns Hopkins Bloomberg Sch Publ Hlth, Evidence Based Toxicol Collaborat, Baltimore, MD 21205 USA
关键词
Systematic review; Evidence mapping; REVIEWS; HEALTH; QUALITY; EXPOSURE; SCIENCE; REACH;
D O I
10.1016/j.envint.2019.05.065
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Real-world evidence to support regulatory decision-making for medicines: Considerations for external control arms
    Burcu, Mehmet
    Dreyer, Nancy A.
    Franklin, Jessica M.
    Blum, Michael D.
    Critchlow, Cathy W.
    Perfetto, Eleanor M.
    Zhou, Wei
    PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY AND DRUG SAFETY, 2020, 29 (10) : 1228 - 1235
  • [22] ADDIS: A decision support system for evidence-based medicine
    van Valkenhoef, Gert
    Tervonen, Tommi
    Zwinkels, Tijs
    de Brock, Bert
    Hillege, Hans
    DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS, 2013, 55 (02) : 459 - 475
  • [23] Systematic Review in Evidence-Based Risk Assessment
    Farhat, Nawal
    Tsaioun, Katya
    Saunders-Hastings, Patrick
    Morgan, Rebecca L.
    Ramoju, Siva
    Hartung, Thomas
    Krewski, Daniel
    ALTEX-ALTERNATIVES TO ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION, 2022, 39 (03) : 463 - 479
  • [24] Evidence-based medicine - an appropriate tool for evidence-based health policy? A case study from Norway
    Malterud, Kirsti
    Bjelland, Anne Karen
    Elvbakken, Kari Tove
    HEALTH RESEARCH POLICY AND SYSTEMS, 2016, 14
  • [25] Decentralizing evidence-based decision-making in resource limited setting: A case of SNNP region, Ethiopia
    Endriyas, Misganu
    Alano, Abraham
    Mekonnen, Emebet
    Kawza, Aknaw
    Lemango, Fisha
    PLOS ONE, 2020, 15 (07):
  • [26] Evidence-based decision making for vaccines: The need for an ethical foundation
    Field, Robert I.
    Caplan, Arthur L.
    VACCINE, 2012, 30 (06) : 1009 - 1013
  • [27] Implementation of evidence-based design approaches in transportation decision making
    Bones, Emma J.
    Barrella, Elise M.
    Amekudzi, Adjo A.
    TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH PART A-POLICY AND PRACTICE, 2013, 49 : 317 - 328
  • [28] Three-stage publishing to support evidence-based management practice
    Marin-Garcia, Juan A.
    WPOM-WORKING PAPERS ON OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT, 2021, 12 (02): : 56 - 95
  • [29] Foundation of Evidence-Based Decision Making for Health Care Managers, Part 1 Systematic Review
    Forrestal, Elizabeth J.
    HEALTH CARE MANAGER, 2014, 33 (02) : 97 - 109
  • [30] MCRB: A multiclassifier tool for risk of bias assessment in a systematic review to produce health evidence to decision making
    Pereira, Ramon
    Castro, Giulia Z.
    Azevedo, Pamela
    Torres, Lucas
    Zuppo, Isabella
    Rocha, Tulio
    Guerra Junior, Augusto
    2020 IEEE 33RD INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON COMPUTER-BASED MEDICAL SYSTEMS(CBMS 2020), 2020, : 1 - 6