Evidence from toxicology: The most essential science for prevention

Environmental Health Perspectives

Volumn 124, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 6-11

  Mandrioli, Daniele ^a,b   Silbergeld, Ellen Kovner ^a  

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

^b Ramazzini Institute   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

FORMALDEHYDE; STYRENE;

ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL ACTIVITY; CLINICAL PRACTICE; DECISION MAKING; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH CARE; HUMAN; INTERNAL VALIDITY; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLIC HEALTH; RELIABILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; TOXICOLOGY; ECOTOXICOLOGY; GOVERNMENT; PROCEDURES; UNITED STATES;

DECISION MAKING; ECOTOXICOLOGY; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY;

EID: 84952690785     PISSN: 00916765     EISSN: 15529924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1289/ehp.1509880     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Abdel-Sattar M, Krauth D, Anglemyer A, Bero L. 2014. The relationship between risk of bias criteria, research outcomes, and study sponsorship in a cohort of preclinical thiazolidinedione animal studies: a meta-analysis. Evid Based Preclin Med 1:11–20.
2. Ågerstrand M, Breitholtz M, Rudén C. 2011. Comparison of four different methods for reliability evaluation of ecotoxicity data: a case study of non-standard test data used in environmental risk assessments of pharmaceutical substances. Environ Sci Eur 23:17; doi:10.1186/2190-4715-23-17.
3. Ashford NA, Castleman B, Frank AL, Giannasi F, Goldman LR, Greenberg M, et al. 2002. The International Commission on Occupational Health (ICOH) and its influence on international organizations. Int J Occup Environ Health 8:156–162.
4. Barnes DE, Bero LA. 1998. Why review articles on the health effects of passive smoking reach different conclusions. JAMA 279:1566–1570.
5. Bero LA. 2013. Why the Cochrane risk of bias tool should include funding source as a standard item [Editorial]. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 12; doi:10.1002/14651858.ED000075.
6. Bero L, Oostvogel F, Bacchetti P, Lee K. 2007. Factors associated with findings of published trials of drug–drug comparisons: why some statins appear more efficacious than others. PLoS Med 4:e184; doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040184.
7. Cochrane Collaboration. 2014. Our Principles. Available: http://community.cochrane.org/about-us/our-principles [accessed 12 November 2015].
8. Cochrane Collaboration. 2015a. Cochrane Homepage. Available: http://www.cochrane.org/[accessed 3 June 2015].
9. Cochrane Collaboration. 2015b. Cochrane Library Homepage. Available: http://www.cochranelibrary.com/[accessed 10 April 2015].
10. Cochrane Collaboration. 2015c. Cochrane Organisational Policy Manual. Available: http://community.cochrane.org/organisational-policymanual [accessed 10 April 2015].
11. Cogliano V. 2014. EPA IRIS Workshop on the NRC Recommendations. Available: http://www2. epa.gov/iris/workshop-discuss-nrc-2014-recommendations-iris [accessed 3 June 2015].
12. Collegium Ramazzini. 2004. Collegium Ramazzini Statement. The Precautionary Principle: implications for research and policy-making. Statement of the Collegium Ramazzini. Am J Ind Med 45:380–381.
13. Conti B, Maltoni C, Perino G, Ciliberti A. 1988. Longterm carcinogenicity bioassays on styrene administered by inhalation, ingestion and injection and styrene oxide administered by ingestion in Sprague-Dawley rats, and para-methylstyrene administered by ingestion in Sprague-Dawley rats and Swiss mice. Ann NY Acad Sci 534:203–234.
14. Denison R. 2014. EDF’s Recommendations for IRIS Conflicts-of-Interest Disclosures, and the Strong Precedents for Them [Blog Post]. Environmental Defense Fund. Available: http://blogs.edf.org/health/2014/11/11/edfs-recommendations-for-irisconflicts-of-interest-disclosures-and-the-strongprecedents-for-them/[accessed 7 June 2015].
15. Dickersin K, Manheimer E. 1998. The Cochrane Collaboration: evaluation of health care and services using systematic reviews of the results of randomized controlled trials. Clin Obstet Gynecol 41:315–331.
16. EBTC (Evidence-Based Toxicology Collaboration). 2015. EBTC Sponsors. Available: http://www.ebtox.com/sponsors/[accessed 7 June 2015].
17. ECHA (European Chemicals Agency). 2015. REACH Regulation Homepage. Available: http://echa.europa.eu/regulations/reach [accessed 3 June 2015].
18. EEA (European Environment Agency). 2013. Late Lessons from Early Warnings: Science, Precaution, Innovation. Available: http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/late-lessons-2 [accessed 3 June 2015].
19. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). 2010. Application of systematic review methodology to food and feed safety assessments to support decision making. EFSA J 8:1637; doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1637. Available: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/1637.htm [accessed 3 June 2015].
20. FDA (Food and Drug Administration). 2009. Guidance for Industry: Evidence-Based Review System for the Scientific Evaluation of Health Claims – Final. Available: http://www.fda.gov/food/guidanceregulation/guidancedocumentsregulatoryinformation/labelingnutrition/ucm073332.htm [accessed 3 June 2015].
21. Gori GB, Dekant W, Doull J, Boobis A. 2015. An Appeal for the Integrity of Science and Public Policy. Available: http://iutox.org/downloads/Integrity_of_Science:Policy.pdf [accessed 12 November 2015.
22. Gøtzsche PC, Jørgensen KJ. 2013. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 6:CD001877; doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001877.pub5.
23. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. 2008. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 336:924–926.
24. Guzelian PS, Victoroff MS, Halmes NC, James RC, Guzelian CP. 2005. Evidence-based toxicology: a comprehensive framework for causation. Hum Exp Toxicol 4:161–201.
25. Hamra GB, Guha N, Cohen A, Laden F, Raaschou- Nielsen O, Samet JM, et al. 2014. Outdoor particulate matter exposure and lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Environ Health Perspect 122:906–911; doi 10.1289/ehp.1408092.
26. Hooijmans CR, Ritskes-Hoitinga M. 2013. Progress in using systematic reviews of animal studies to improve translational research. PLoS Med 10(7):e1001482; doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001482.
27. Ioannidis JPA, Greenland S, Hlatky MA, Khoury MJ, Macleod MR, Moher D, et al. 2014. Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. Lancet 383:166–175.
28. Jefferson T, Di Pietrantonj C, Rivetti A, Bawazeer GA, Al-Ansary LA, Ferroni E. 2010. Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (7):CD001269. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001269.pub4.
29. Jørgensen AW, Hilden J, Gøtzsche PC. 2006. Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: systematic review. BMJ 333:782; doi:10.1136/bmj.38973.444699.0B.
30. Josefson D. 2001. Johns Hopkins faces further criticism over experiments. BMJ 323:531; doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7312.531.
31. Katz RV, Kegeles SS, Kressin NR, Green BL, Wang MQ, James SA, et al. 2006. The Tuskegee Legacy Project: willingness of minorities to participate in biomedical research. J Health Care Poor Underserved 17:698–715.
32. 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.
33. Knudsen TB, Kavlock RJ, Daston GP, Stedman D, Hixon M, Kim JH. 2011. Developmental toxicity testing for safety assessment: new approaches and technologies. Birth Defects Res B Dev Reprod Toxicol 92:413–420.
34. Kola I, Landis J. 2004. Can the pharmaceutical industry reduce attrition rates? Nat Rev Drug Discov 3:711–715.
35. Krauth D, Anglemyer A, Philipps R, Bero L. 2014. Nonindustry-sponsored preclinical studies on statins yield greater efficacy estimates than industry-sponsored studies: a meta-analysis. PLoS Biol 12:e1001770; doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001770.
36. Krauth D, Woodruff TJ, Bero L. 2013. Instruments for assessing risk of bias and other methodological criteria of published animal studies: a systematic review. Environ Health Perspect 121:985–992; doi:10.1289/ehp.1206389.
37. LaDou J, Castleman B, Frank A, Gochfeld M, Greenberg M, Huff J, et al. 2010. The case for a global ban on asbestos. Environ Health Perspect 118:897–901; doi:10.1289/ehp.1002285.
38. Lundh A, Sismondo S, Lexchin J, Busuioc OA, Bero L. 2012. Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 12:MR000033; doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000033.pub2.
39. Manuel J. 2014. Crisis and emergency risk communication lessons from the Elk River spill. Environ Health Perspect 122:A214–A219; doi:10.1289/ehp.122-A214.
40. Myers JP, vom Saal FS, Akingbemi BT, Arizono K, Belcher S, Colborn T, 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 117:309–315; doi:10.1289/ehp.0800173.
41. Neltner TG, Alger HM, O’Reilly JT, Krimsky S, Bero LA, Maffini MV. 2013. Conflicts of interest in approvals of additives to food determined to be generally recognized as safe: out of balance. JAMA Intern Med 173:2032–2036.
42. NRC (National Research Council). 2014a. Review of EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Process. Washington, DC:National Academies Press.
43. NRC. 2014b. Review of the Formaldehyde Assessment in the National Toxicology Program 12th Report on Carcinogens. Washington, DC:National Academies Press.
44. NRC. 2014c. Review of the Styrene Assessment in the National Toxicology Program 12th Report on Carcinogens. Washington, DC:National Academies Press.
45. NTP (National Toxicology Program). 2011. 12th Report on Carcinogens. Research Triangle Park, NC:NTP.
46. NTP-OHAT (National Toxicology Program, Office of Health Assessment and Translation). 2015. Handbook for Conducting a Literature-Based Health Assessment Using OHAT Approach for Systematic Review and Evidence Integration. Available: https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/ohat/pubs/handbookjan2015_508.pdf [accessed 10 April 2015].
47. OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development). 1998. OECD Principles on Good Laboratory Practice (as Revised in 1997). OECD Series on Principles of Good Laboratory Practice and Compliance Monitoring: No. 1. ENV/MC/CHEM(98)17. Available: http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=env/mc/chem(98)17&doclanguage=en [accessed 3 June 2015].
48. Pearce N, Blair A, Vineis P, Ahrens W, Andersen A, Anto JM, et al. 2015. IARC Monographs: 40 years of evaluating carcinogenic hazards to humans. Environ Health Perspect 6:507–514; doi:10.1289/ehp.1409149.
49. Ponti B, Bettinetti R, Dossi C, Vignati DA. 2014. How reliable are data for the ecotoxicity of trivalent chromium to Daphnia magna? Environ Toxicol Chem 33:2280–2287.
50. Rooney AA, Boyles AL, Wolfe MS, Bucher JR, Thayer KA. 2014. Systematic review and evidence integration for literature-based environmental health science assessments. Environ Health Perspect 122:711–718; doi:10.1289/ehp.1307972.
51. Schmidt CW. 2009. TOX 21: new dimensions of toxicity testing. Environ Health Perspect 117:A348–A353.
52. Silbergeld E, Lerman S, Hushka L. 2004. Ethics. Human health research ethics. Science 305:949; doi:10.1126/science.1096862.
53. Silbergeld EK, Mandrioli D, Cranor CF. 2015. Regulating chemicals: law, science, and the unbearable burdens of regulation. Annu Rev Public Health 36:175–191; doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031914-122654.
54. Silbergeld E, Scherer RW. 2013. Evidence-based toxicology: strait is the gate, but the road is worth taking. ALTEX 30:67–73.
55. Soffritti M, Belpoggi F, Lambertin L, Lauriola M, Padovani M, Maltoni C. 2002. Results of long-term experimental studies on the carcinogenicity of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde in rats. Ann NY Acad Sci 982:87–105.
56. Tice RR, Austin CP, Kavlock RJ, Bucher JR. 2013. Improving the human hazard characterization of chemicals: a Tox21 update. Environ Health Perspect 121:756–765; doi:10.1289/ehp.1205784.
57. Tovey D. 2014. The role of The Cochrane Collaboration in support of the WHO Nutrition Guidelines. Adv Nutr 5:35–39.
58. ToxStrategies. 2015. Systematic Reviews and Evidence- Based Toxicology. Available: https://www. toxstrategies.com/services/systematic-reviews-andevidence-based-toxicology/[accessed 7 June 2015].
59. UN (United Nations). 1992. Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Rio de Janeiro, 3–14 June 1992). New York:UN. Available: http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-1annex1.htm [accessed 3 June 2015].
60. Weed DL. 2005. Weight of evidence: a review of concept and methods. Risk Anal 25:1545–1557.
61. Woodruff TJ, Sutton P. 2014. The Navigation Guide systematic review methodology: a rigorous and transparent method for translating environmental health science into better health outcomes. Environ Health Perspect 122:1007–1014; doi:10.1289/ehp.1307175.