How Evidence-Based Methodologies Can Help Identify and Reduce Uncertainty in Chemical Risk Assessment

被引:5
作者
Hoffmann, Sebastian [1 ]
Whaley, Paul [1 ,2 ]
Tsaioun, Katya [1 ]
机构
[1] Johns Hopkins Bloomberg Sch Publ Hlth, Evidence Based Toxicol Collaborat EBTC, 615 N Wolfe St, Baltimore, MD 21205 USA
[2] Univ Lancaster, Lancaster Environm Ctr, Lancaster, England
关键词
EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; ENVIRONMENTAL-HEALTH SCIENCE; NO-EFFECT LEVELS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS; QUALITY; GRADE; GUIDE; EXPOSURE; OPPORTUNITIES; CONCLUSIONS;
D O I
10.14573/altex.2201131
中图分类号
R-3 [医学研究方法]; R3 [基础医学];
学科分类号
1001 ;
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页码:175 / 182
页数:8
相关论文
共 75 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2016, National Toxicology Program, (September)
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2015, Handbook for Preparing Report on Carcinogens Monographs
[3]   Approaches for describing and communicating overall uncertainty in toxicity characterizations: US Environmental Protection Agency's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) as a case study [J].
Beck, Nancy B. ;
Becker, Richard A. ;
Erraguntla, Neeraja ;
Farland, William H. ;
Grant, Roberta L. ;
Gray, George ;
Kirman, Christopher ;
LaKind, Judy S. ;
Lewis, R. Jeffrey ;
Nance, Patricia ;
Pottenger, Lynn H. ;
Santos, Susan L. ;
Shirley, Stephanie ;
Simon, Ted ;
Dourson, Michael L. .
ENVIRONMENT INTERNATIONAL, 2016, 89-90 :110-128
[4]   How did the US EPA and IARC reach diametrically opposed conclusions on the genotoxicity of glyphosate-based herbicides? [J].
Benbrook, Charles M. .
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES EUROPE, 2019, 31 (1)
[5]   The principles and methods behind EFSA's Guidance on Uncertainty Analysis in Scientific Assessment [J].
Benford, Diane ;
Halldorsson, Thorhallur ;
Jeger, Michael John ;
Knutsen, Helle Katrine ;
More, Simon ;
Naegeli, Hanspeter ;
Noteborn, Hubert ;
Ockleford, Colin ;
Ricci, Antonia ;
Rychen, Guido ;
Schlatter, Josef R. ;
Silano, Vittorio ;
Solecki, Roland ;
Turck, Dominique ;
Younes, Maged ;
Craig, Peter ;
Hart, Andrew ;
Von Goetz, Natalie ;
Koutsoumanis, Kostas ;
Mortensen, Alicja ;
Ossendorp, Bernadette ;
Germini, Andrea ;
Martino, Laura ;
Merten, Caroline ;
Mosbach-Schulz, Olaf ;
Smith, Anthony ;
Hardy, Anthony .
EFSA JOURNAL, 2018, 16 (01)
[6]   Guidance on Uncertainty Analysis in Scientific Assessments [J].
Benford, Diane ;
Halldorsson, Thorhallur ;
Jeger, Michael John ;
Knutsen, Helle Katrine ;
More, Simon ;
Naegeli, Hanspeter ;
Noteborn, Hubert ;
Ockleford, Colin ;
Ricci, Antonia ;
Rychen, Guido ;
Schlatter, Josef R. ;
Silano, Vittorio ;
Solecki, Roland ;
Turck, Dominique ;
Younes, Maged ;
Craig, Peter ;
Hart, Andrew ;
Von Goetz, Natalie ;
Koutsoumanis, Kostas ;
Mortensen, Alicja ;
Ossendorp, Bernadette ;
Martino, Laura ;
Merten, Caroline ;
Mosbach-Schulz, Olaf ;
Hardy, Anthony .
EFSA JOURNAL, 2018, 16 (01)
[7]  
Berkman N.D., 2014, The empirical evidence of bias in trials measuring treatment differences
[8]   The risk of bias in observational studies of exposures (ROBINS-E) tool: concerns arising from application to observational studies of exposures [J].
Bero, Lisa ;
Chartres, Nicholas ;
Diong, Joanna ;
Fabbri, Alice ;
Ghersi, Davina ;
Lam, Juleen ;
Lau, Agnes ;
McDonald, Sally ;
Mintzes, Barbara ;
Sutton, Patrice ;
Turton, Jessica Louise ;
Woodruff, Tracey J. .
SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2018, 7
[9]   Evolution of chemical-specific adjustment factors (CSAF) based on recent international experience; increasing utility and facilitating regulatory acceptance [J].
Bhat, Virunya S. ;
Meek, M. E. ;
Valcke, Mathieu ;
English, Caroline ;
Boobis, Alan ;
Brown, Richard .
CRITICAL REVIEWS IN TOXICOLOGY, 2017, 47 (09) :729-749
[10]   Human epidemiological evidence about the associations between exposure to organochlorine chemicals and endometriosis: Systematic review and meta-analysis [J].
Cano-Sancho, German ;
Ploteau, Stephane ;
Matta, Komodo ;
Adoamnei, Evdochia ;
Louis, Germaine Buck ;
Mendiola, Jaime ;
Darai, Emile ;
Squifflet, Jean ;
Le Bizec, Bruno ;
Antignac, Jean-Philippe .
ENVIRONMENT INTERNATIONAL, 2019, 123 :209-223