Systematic review and evidence integration for literature-based environmental health science assessments

Environmental Health Perspectives

Volumn 122, Issue 7, 2014, Pages 711-718

  Rooney, Andrew A ^a   Boyles, Abee L ^a   Wolfe, Mary S ^a   Bucher, John R ^a   Thayer, Kristina A ^a  

^a NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CHECKLIST; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; DATA EXTRACTION; DOSE RESPONSE; ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH; HAZARD ASSESSMENT; HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT; HUMAN; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); METHODOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION; PUBLISHING; RATING SCALE; RISK ASSESSMENT; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; ANIMAL; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; LITERATURE; PROCEDURES; UNITED STATES;

ANIMALS; ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84903754176     PISSN: 00916765     EISSN: 15529924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1289/ehp.1307972     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Ahmed I, Sutton AJ, Riley RD. 2012. Assessment of publication bias, selection bias, and unavailable data in meta-analyses using individual participant data: a database survey. BMJ 344:d7762; doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d7762.
2. AHRQ (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality). 2013. AHRQ Training Modules for the Systematic Reviews Methods Guide. Available: http://www.effectivehealthcare. ahrq.gov/index.cfm/tools-and-resources/slidelibrary/# slidetrainingmodules [accessed 11 October 2013].
3. Balshem H, Helfand M, Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Brozek J, et al. 2011. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 64:401-406.
4. Birnbaum LS, Thayer KA, Bucher JR, Wolfe MS. 2013. Implementing systematic review at the National Toxicology Program [Editorial]. Environ Health Perspect 121:A108-A109; doi:10.1289/ehp.1306711.
5. Bucher JR, Thayer K, Birnbaum LS. 2011. The Office of Health Assessment and Translation: a problem-solving resource for the National Toxicology Program [Editorial]. Environ Health Perspect 119:A196-A197; doi:10.1289/ehp.1103645.
6. CLARITY Group at McMaster University. 2013. Systematic and Literature Review Resources. Instruments. Available: http://www.evidencepartners.com/resources/ [accessed 15 January 2013].
7. Cochrane Collaboration. 2013. Glosssary of Cochrane terms. Available: http://www.cochrane.org/glossary [accessed 15 January 2013].
8. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). 2010. Application of systematic review methodology to food and feed safety assessments to support decision making. EFSA J 8(6):1637 doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1637.
9. Food and Drug Administration. 2010. Guidance for Industry: Adaptive Design Clinical Trials for Drugs and Biologics: Draft Guidance. Available: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ Drugs/.../Guidances/ucm201790.pdf [accessed 29 December 2012].
10. Foster PM. 2009. Explanation of Levels of Evidence for Reproductive System Toxicity. Available: http://ntp.niehs. nih.gov/ntp/htdocs/levels/09_3566_ntp_reprotox_r1.pdf [accessed 15 January 2013].
11. Germolec D. 2009. Explanation of Levels of Evidence for Immune System Toxicity. Available: http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/ htdocs/levels/09-3566%20ntp-itox-r1.pdf [accessed 15 January 2013].
12. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation Working Group). 2014. GRADE Guidelines-Best Practices Using the GRADE Framework Available: http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org/publications/ JCE_series.htm [accessed 6 June 2014].
13. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, et al. 2011a. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol 64:383-394.
14. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Brozek J, Alonso-Coello P, Rind D, et al. 2011b. GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence-imprecision. J Clin Epidemiol 64:1283-1293.
15. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Woodcock J, Brozek J, Helfand M, et al. 2011c. GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence-indirectness. J Clin Epidemiol 64:1303-1310.
16. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Montori V, Vist G, Kunz R, Brozek J, et al. 2011d. GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence-publication bias. J Clin Epidemiol 64:1277-1282.
17. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist G, Kunz R, Brozek J, Alonso-Coello P, et al. 2011e. GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence-study limitations (risk of bias). J Clin Epidemiol 64:407-415.
18. Higgins J, Green S. 2011. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Available: http://www.cochranehandbook. org [accessed 3 February 2013].
19. Hill AB. 1965. The environment and disease: association or causation? Proc R Soc Med 58:295-300.
20. Hopewell S, Loudon K, Clarke MJ, Oxman AD, Dickersin K. 2009. Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of trial results. Cochrane Database Syst Rev; doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000006.pub3.
21. Jahnke GD, Iannucci AR, Scialli AR, Shelby MD. 2005. Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction-the first five years. Birth Defects Res B Dev Reprod Toxicol 74:1-8.
22. Khan K, ter Riet G, Glanville J, Sowden A, Kleijnen J, eds. 2001. Undertaking Systematic Reviews of Research on Effectiveness: CRD's Guidance for those Carrying Out or Commissioning Reviews. CRD Report 4. 2nd ed. York, UK:NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York.
23. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. 2009. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol 62:e1-e34.
24. Lohr KN. 2012. Grading the Strenth of Evidence. In: The EHC Program Slide Library. Available: http://www. effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/index.cfm/slides/?pageActio n=displaySlides&tk=18 [accessed 13 July 2012].
25. Medlin J. 2003. New arrival: CERHR monograph series on reproductive toxicants. Environ Health Perspect 111:A696-A698.
26. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. 2009. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol 62:1006-1012.
27. NRC (National Research Council). 2011. Committee to Review of the Environmental Protection Agency's Draft IRIS Assessment of Formaldehyde. Washington, DC:National Academies Press. Available: http://www.nap.edu/openbook. php?record_id=13142 [accessed 30 July 2012].
28. NRC (National Research Council). 2013a. Critical Aspects of EPA's IRIS Assessment of Inorganic Arsenic: Interim Report. Washington, DC:National Academies Press. Available: http:// www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18594 [accessed 7 November 2013].
29. NRC (National Research Council). 2013b. Project Title: Review of the IRIS Process. Available: http://www8. nationalacademies.org/cp/projectview.aspx?key=49458 [accessed 1 November 2013].
30. NTP (National Toxicology Program). 2012a. Board of Scientific Counselors Meeting, December 11, 2012. Meeting Materials. Available: http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/9741 [accessed 21 February 2013].
31. NTP (National Toxicology Program). 2012b. Board of Scientific Counselors Meeting, June 21-22, 2012. Meeting Materials. Available: http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/9741 [accessed 16 June 2013].
32. NTP (National Toxicology Program). 2013a. Draft Protocol for Systematic Review to Evaluate the Evidence for an Association between Bisphenol A (BPA) and Obesity. Available: http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/ohat/ evaluationprocess/bpaprotocoldraft.pdf [accessed 6 June 2014].
33. NTP (National Toxicology Program). 2013b. OHAT Implementation of Systematic Review. Available: http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ go/38673 [accessed 16 June 2013].
34. NTP (National Toxicology Program). 2013c. Webinar on the Assessment of Data Quality in Animal Studies. Available: http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/?objectid=27C7DBCB-C462-2B16-FFC315A4AE022937 [accessed 6 June 2014].
35. NTP (National Toxicology Program). 2013d. Draft OHAT Approach for Systematic Review and Evidence Integration for Literature-Based Health Assessments-February 2013. Available: http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/ohat/ evaluationprocess/draftohatapproach_february2013.pdf [accessed 6 June 2014].
36. NTP (National Toxicology Program). 2013e. Board of Scientific Counselors Meeting, June 25, 2013. Meeting Materials. Available: http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/9741 [accessed 1 November 2013].
37. NTP (National Toxicology Program). 2013f. Draft Protocol for Systematic Review to Evaluate the Evidence for an Association Between Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) or Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) Exposure and Immunotoxicity. Available: http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/ohat/ evaluationprocess/pfos_pfoa_immuneprotocoldraft.pdf [accessed 6 June 2014].
38. NTP (National Toxicology Program). 2013g. OHAT Evaluation Process. Available: http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/38138 [accessed 16 June 2013].
39. NTP (National Toxicology Program). 2014a. Chemical Effects in Biological Systems (CEBS). Available: http://www.niehs. nih.gov/research/resources/databases/cebs/index.cfm [accessed 31 March 2014].
40. NTP (National Toxicology Program). 2014b. OHAT Nominations Under Consideration and Evaluations. Available: http://ntp. niehs.nih.gov/go/evals [accessed 31 March 2014].
41. Rhomberg LR, Goodman JE, Bailey LA, Prueitt RL, Beck NB, Bevan C, et al. 2013. A survey of frameworks for best practices in weight-of-evidence analyses. Crit Rev Toxicol 43:753-784.
42. Schünemann H, Hill S, Guyatt G, Akl EA, Ahmed F. 2011. The GRADE approach and Bradford Hill's criteria for causation. J Epidemiol Community Health 65:392-395.
43. Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Higgins JPT, Deeks JJ, Glasziou P, et al. 2012. Chapter 12: Interpreting results and drawing conclusions. In: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 510 [updated March 2011] (Higgins JPT, Green S, eds): The Cochrane Collaboration. Available: http://www.cochrane.org/sites/ default/files/Handbook510pdf_Ch12_Interpreting.pdf [accessed 6 June 2014].
44. Shelby MD. 2005. National Toxicology Program Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction: guidelines for CERHR expert panel members. Birth Defects Res B Dev Reprod Toxicol 74:9-16.
45. Stern JM, Simes RJ. 1997. Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects. BMJ 315:640-645.
46. Twombly R. 1998. New NTP centers meet the need to know. Environ Health Perspect 106:A480-A483.
47. Viswanathan M, Ansari M, Berkman ND, Chang S, Hartling L, McPheeters LM, et al. 2012. Assessing the risk of bias of individual studies when comparing medical interventions. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Methods Guide for Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. AHRQ Publication No. 12-EHC047-EF. Available: http://www. effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/index.cfm/search-forguides-reviews-and-reports/?pageaction=displayproduct &productid=998 [accessed 3 January 2013].
48. Whitlock EP, Lopez SA, Chang S, Helfand M, Eder M, Floyd N. 2010. AHRQ series paper 3: identifying, selecting, and refining topics for comparative effectiveness systematic reviews: AHRQ and the Effective Health-Care Program. J Clin Epidemiol 63:491-501.
49. Woodruff TJ, Sutton P. 2011. An evidence-based medicine methodology to bridge the gap between clinical and environmental health sciences. Health Aff 30:931-937.