A survey of frameworks for best practices in weight-of-evidence analyses

Critical Reviews in Toxicology

Volumn 43, Issue 9, 2013, Pages 753-784

  Rhomberg, Lorenz R ^a   Goodman, Julie E ^a   Bailey, Lisa A ^a   Prueitt, Robyn L ^a   Beck, Nancy B ^b   Bevan, Christopher ^c   Honeycutt, Michael ^d   Kaminski, Norbert E ^e   Paoli, Greg ^f   Pottenger, Lynn H ^g   Scherer, Roberta W ^h   Wise, Kimberly C ^b   Becker, Richard A ^b  

^a GRADIENT   (United States)

^b American Chemistry Council   (United States)

^c CJB Consulting LLC   (United States)

^d Texas Commission on Environmental Quality   (United States)

^e MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^f RISK SCIENCES INTERNATIONAL   (Canada)

^g DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY   (United States)

^h JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

Data integration; Human relevance; Mode of action; Risk assessment; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; HEALTH HAZARD; HUMAN; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE FRAMEWORK; WORKSHOP;

ANIMALS; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; ECOTOXICOLOGY; HUMANS; PUBLIC HEALTH; RISK ASSESSMENT; UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY;

EID: 84884606161     PISSN: 10408444     EISSN: 15476898     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/10408444.2013.832727     Document Type: Review

References (83)

1. Adami HO, Berry SC, Breckenridge C, et al. (2011). Toxicology and epidemiology: improving the science with a framework for combining toxicological and epidemiological evidence to establish causal inference. Toxicol Sci, 122, 223-34.
2. Becker RA, Janus ER, White RD, et al. (2010). Good Laboratory Practices: Becker et al. Respond. Environ Health Perspect, 118, A194-5.
3. Bevan C, Strother D. (2012). Best practices for evaluating method validity, data quality and study reliability of toxicity studies for chemical hazard and risk assessment. Developed for ACCs Center for Advancing Risk Assessment Science and Policy. Available from: http://arasp.americanchemistry. com/Data-Quality-Evaluation [last accessed 22 Mar 2013].
4. Boekelheide K, Campion SN. (2010). Toxicity testing in the 21st century: using the new toxicity testing paradigm to create a taxonomy of adverse effects. Toxicol Sci, 114, 20-4.
5. Boffetta P, Winn DM, Ioannidis JP, et al. (2012). Recommendations and proposed guidelines for assessing the cumulative evidence on joint effects of genes and environments on cancer occurrence in humans. Int J Epidemiol, 41, 686-704.
6. Boobis AR, Cohen SM, Dellarco V, et al. (2006). IPCS framework for analyzing the relevance of a cancer mode of action for humans. Crit Rev Toxicol, 36, 781-92.
7. Boobis AR, Daston GP, Preston RJ, Olin SS. (2009). Application of key events analysis to chemical carcinogens and noncarcinogens. Crit Rev Toxicol, 49, 690-707.
8. Boobis AR, Doe JE, Heinrich-Hirsch B, et al. (2008). IPCS framework for analyzing the relevance of a noncancer mode of action for humans. Crit Rev Toxicol, 38, 87-96.
9. Borgert CJ, Mihaich EM, Ortego LS, et al. (2011). Hypothesis-driven weight of evidence framework for evaluating data within the US EPAs Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 61, 185-91.
10. Boyles AL. (2012). NTP Update: systematic Review Incorporating Data Mining with Graphical Tools for Researchers. National Toxicology Program (NTP), Office of Health Assessment and Translation, 30p., March 6.
11. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 2004). The Health Consequences of Smoking: a Report of the Surgeon General. US Public Health Service, Office of the Surgeon General. [Online] Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data-statistics/sgr/2004/complete-report/index.htm [last accessed 11 Feb 2013].
12. Cole P. (1997). Causation in epidemiology, health policy, and law. Environ Law Rep, 27, 10279-85.
13. European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals (ECETOC) 2009). Framework of the Integration of Human and Animal Data in Chemical Risk Assessment. ECETOC Technical Report No. 104. 130p., January.
14. European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). (2010). Practical Guide 2: how to Report Weight of Evidence. ECHA-10-B-05-EN. 26p. European Commission, Directorate-General for Health & Consumers, Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR). (2012). Memondum on the Use of the Scientific Literature for Human Health Risk Assessment Purposes - Weighing of Evidence and Expression of Uncertainty. 46p., March 19.
15. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). (2010). Application of systematic review methodology to food and feed safety assessments to support decision making. EFSA J, 8, 1637, 1-90.
16. Goodman JE, Dodge DG, Bailey LA. (2010). A framework for assessing causality and adverse effects in humans with a case study of sulfur dioxide. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 58, 308-22.
17. Gray GM, Baskin SI, Charnley G, et al. (2001). The annapolis accords on the use of toxicology in risk assessment and decision-making. Annapolis, MD: The Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy, 13p.
18. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. (2008a). What is quality of evidence and why is it important to clinicians? BMJ, 336, 995-8.
19. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. (2008b). GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ, 336, 924-6.
20. Guzelian PS, Victoroff MS, Halmes NC, et al. (2005). Evidence-based toxicology: a comprehensive framework for causation. Hum Exp Toxicol, 24, 161-201.
21. Higgins JPT, Green S, eds 2011). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Version 5.1.0). The Cochrane Collaboration. [Online] Available from: http://www.cochranehandbook.org [last accessed 11 Feb 2013].
22. Hill AB. (1965). The environment and disease: association or causation? Proc R Soc Med, 58, 295-300.
23. Institute of Medicine (IOM). (2008). Improving the presumptive disability decision-making process for veterans. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
24. Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) 1997). Validation and Regulatory Acceptance of Toxicological Test Methods. Research Triangle Park, NC: National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. [Online] Available from: http://alttox.org/ttrc/us/validation- centers.html [last accessed 22 Mar 2013].
25. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) 2006). Preamble to the IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Lyon, France: World Health Organisation; IARC. [Online] Available from: http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Preamble/CurrentPreamble.pdf [last accessed 11 Feb 2013].
26. Ioannidis JP, Boffetta P, Little J, et al. (2008). Assessment of cumulative evidence on genetic associations: interim guidelines. Int J Epidemiol, 37, 120-32.
27. Julien E, Boobis AR, Olin SS. (2009). The Key Events Dose-Response Framework: a cross-disciplinary mode-of-action based approach to examining dose-response and thresholds. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr, 49, 682-9.
28. Klimisch HJ, Andreae M, Tillmann U. (1997). A systematic approach for evaluating the quality of experimental toxicological and ecotoxicological data. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 25, 1-5.
29. Krimsky S. (2005). The weight of scientific evidence in policy and law. Am J Public Health, 95, S129-36.
30. Kundi M. (2007). Causality and the interpretation of epidemiologic evidence. Cien Saude Colet, 12, 419-28.
31. Lewis RW, Billington R, Debryune E, et al. (2002). Recognition of adverse and nonadverse effects in toxicity studies. Toxicol Pathol, 30, 66-74.
32. Li AA, Levine TE, Burns CJ, Anger WK. (2012). Integration of epidemiology and animal neurotoxicity data for risk assessment. Neurotoxicology, 33, 823-32.
33. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. (2009). The PRISMA Statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care intverventions: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med, 151, W65-94.
34. Linkov I, Loney D, Cormier S, et al. (2009). Weight-ofevidence evaluation in environmental assessment: review of qualitative and quantitative approaches. Sci Total Environ, 407, 5199-205.
35. Linkov I, Welle P, Loney D, et al. (2011). Use of multicriteria decision analysis to support weight of evidence evaluation. Risk Anal, 31, 1211-25.
36. Meek ME, Bucher JR, Cohen SM, et al. (2003). A framework for human relevance analysis of information on carcinogenic modes of action. Crit Rev Toxicol, 33, 591-653.
37. Myers JP, Vom Saal FS, Akingbemi BT, et al. (2009). Why public health agencies cannot depend on good laboratory practices as a criterion for selecting data: the case of bisphenol A. Environ Health Perspect, 117, 309-15.
38. National Research Council (NRC). (2007). Toxicity testing in the twenty-first century: a vision and a strategy. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
39. National Research Council (NRC). (2009). Science and decisions: advancing risk assessment. [The Silver Book.] Committee on Improving Risk Analysis Approaches Used by the US EPA. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
40. National Research Council (NRC). (2011). Review of the environmental protection agencys draft IRIS assessment of formaldehyde. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
41. National Toxicology Program (NTP). (2005). National toxicology program center for the evaluation of risks to human reproduction: guidelines for CERHR expert panel members, 23p., January 27.
42. National Toxicology Program (NTP). (2012). Summary Minutes of NTP Board of Scientific Counselors Meeting, held June 21-22, 2012, in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. 36p.
43. Proctor DM, Otani JM, Finley BL, et al. (2002). Is hexavalent chromium carcinogenic via ingestion? A weight-of-evidence review. J Toxicol Environ Health A, 65, 701-46.
44. Prueitt RL, Goodman JE, Bailey LA, Rhomberg LR. (2011). Hypothesisbased weight-of-evidence evaluation of the neurodevelopmental effects of chlorpyrifos. Crit Rev Toxicol, 41, 822-903.
45. Rhomberg LR, Bailey LA, Goodman JE. (2010). Hypothesis-based weight of evidence: a tool for evaluating and communicating uncertainties and inconsistencies in the large body of evidence in proposing a carcinogenic mode of action - Naphthalene as an example. Crit Rev Toxicol, 40, 671-96.
46. Rhomberg LR, Goodman JE, Bailey LA, Prueitt, RL. (2012). Workshop Discussion Draft: best Practices for Weight-of-Evidence Evaluations. October 22, 79p.
47. Schunemann H, Hills S, Guyatt G, et al. (2011). The GRADE approach and Bradford Hills criteria for causation. J Epidemiol Community Health, 65, 392-5.
48. Seed J, Carney EW, Corley RA, et al. (2005). Overview: using mode of action and life stage information to evaluate the human relevance of animal toxicity data. Crit Rev Toxicol, 35, 664-72.
49. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al. (2007). Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol, 7, 10.
50. Sonich-Mullin C, Fielder R, Wiltse J, et al. (2001). IPCS conceptual framework for evaluating a mode of action for chemical carcinogenesis. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 34, 146-52.
51. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. (2000). Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. JAMA, 283, 2008-12.
52. Suter II GW, Cormier SM. (2011). Why and how to combine evidence in environmental assessments: weighing evidence and building cases. Sci Total Environ, 409, 1406-17.
53. Swaen G, van Amelsvoort L. (2009). A weight of evidence approach to causal inference. J Clin Epidemiol, 62, 270-7.
54. Swaen GM. (2006). A framework for using epidemiological data for risk assessment. Hum Exp Toxicol, 25, 147-55.
55. Thayer K. (2012). Systematic Review and New Tools for Information Management and Data Display. National Toxicology Program (NTP), Office of Health Assessment and Translation, 1p.
56. Tyl RW. (2009). Basic exploratory research versus guideline-compliant studies used for hazard evaluation and risk assessment: bisphenol A as a case study. Environ Health Perspect, 117, 1644-51.
57. United Nations. (2011). Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) (Fourth Revised Edition). ST/SG/AC.10/30/Rev.4, 568p.
58. US EPA. (1986a). Guidelines for mutagenicity risk assessment. Fed Reg, 51, 34006-12.
59. US EPA. (1986b). Guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment. Fed Reg, 51, 33992-4003.
60. US EPA. (1991). Guidelines for developmental toxicity risk assessment. Fed Reg, 56, 63798-826.
61. US EPA. (1994). Methods for Derivation of Inhalation Reference Concentrations and Application of Inhalation Dosimetry. Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office. EPA-600/8-90/066F, October.
62. US EPA. (1998). Guidelines for neurotoxicity risk assessment. Fed Reg, 63, 26926-54.
63. US EPA. (2002). A Review of the Reference Dose and Reference Concentration Processes (Final). Risk Assessment Forum, Reference Dose/Reference Concentration (RfD/RfC) Technical Panel. EPA/630-P-02/002F, 192p., December.
64. US EPA. (2005a). Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. Risk Assessment Forum. EPA/630/P-03/001F, March.
65. US EPA. (2006). A Framework for Assessing Health Risks of Environmental Exposures to Children. National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA). EPA/600/R-05/093F, 145p.,September.
66. US EPA. (2007). Framework for Determining a Mutagenic Mode of Action for Carcinogenicity: using EPAs 2005 Cancer Guidelines and Supplemental Guidance for Assessing Susceptibility from Early-Life Exposure to Carcinogens [External Peer Review Draft]. Risk Assessment Forum Technical Panel on Mutagenic Mode of Action. EPA 120/R-07/002-A, 50p., September.
67. US EPA. (2010). Framework for Incorporating Human Epidemiologic & Incident Data in Health Risk Assessment (Draft). Office of Pesticide Programs. 68p., January 7.
68. US EPA. (2011a). Integrated Science Assessment for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants (Second External Review Draft). National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA): EPA/600/R-10/076B, 1222p., September.
69. US EPA (2011b). Evaluation Guidelines for Ecological Toxicity Data in the Open Literature. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/efed/ policy-guidance/team-authors/endangered-species-reregistration-workgroup/ esa-evaluation-open-literature.htm. [last accessed 11 Feb 2013].
70. US EPA (2011c). Weight-of-Evidence: evaluating Results of EDSP Tier 1 Screening to Identify the Need for Tier 2 Testing. Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. Washington DC. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/ scipoly/oscpendo/index.htm [last accessed11 Feb 2013].
71. US EPA. (2012a). EPAs Integrated Risk Information System Program: progress Report and Report to Congress. 29p., June. [Online] Available from: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/pdfs/irisprogressreport2012.pdf [last accessed 11 Feb 2013].
72. US EPA. (2012b). Preamble to IRIS Toxicological Reviews. National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA), EPA/635/R-11/013A,13p., June.
73. US EPA. (2012c). Framework for Human Health Risk Assessment to Inform Decision Making (EPA External Review Draft). Risk Assessment Forum, EPA-601-D12-001, 85p., July 12
74. US Food and Drug Administration (US FDA). (2009). Guidance for Industry: evidence-Based Review System for the Scientific Evaluation of Health Claims (Final). 29p., January. [Online] Available from:http://www.fda.gov/Food/ GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocuments/ FoodLabelingNutrition/ucm073332.htm [last accessed 11 Feb 2013].
75. Vlaanderen J, Vermeulen R, Heederik D, Kromhout H. (2008). Guidelines to evaluate human observational studies for quantitative risk assessment. Environ Health Perspect, 116, 1700-5.
76. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, et al. (2007). Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. BMJ, 335, 806-8.
77. Vyskocil A, Truchon G, Leroux T, et al. (2011). A weight of evidence approach for the assessment of the ototoxic potential of industrial chemicals. Toxicol Ind Health, 28, 796-819.
78. Walker VR. (1996). Risk characterization and the weight of evidence: adapting gatekeeping concepts from the courts. Risk Anal, 16, 793-9.
79. Waters M, Stasiewicz S, Merrick BA, et al. (2008). CEBS - Chemical Effects in Biological Systems: a public data repository integrating study design and toxicity data with microarray and proteomics data. Nucleic Acids Res, 36, D892-900.
80. Weed DL. (2005). Weight of evidence: a review of concepts and methods. Risk Anal, 25, 1545-57.
81. Woodruff TJ, Sutton P. (2011). An evidence-based medicine methodology to bridge the gap between clinical and environmental health sciences. Health Aff (Millwood), 30, 931-7.
82. World Health Organization/International Programme on Chemical Safety (WHO/IPCS) 2009). IPCS Risk Assessment Terminology. Part 1: IPCS/OECD Key Generic Terms used in Chemical Hazard/Risk Assessment Part 2: IPCS Glossary of Key Exposure Assessment Terminology]. Available from: http://www.inchem.org/ documents/harmproj/harmproj/harmproj1.pdf [last accessed 11 Feb 2013].
83. Youngstrom E, Kenworthy L, Lipkin PH, et al. (2011). A proposal to facilitate weight-of-evidence assessments: harmonization of Neurodevelopmental Environmental Epidemiology Studies (HONEES). Neurotoxicol Teratol, 33, 354-9.