GRADE: Assessing the quality of evidence in environmental and occupational health

Environment International

Volumn 92-93, Issue , 2016, Pages 611-616

  Morgan, Rebecca L ^a   Thayer, Kristina A ^b   Bero, Lisa ^c   Bruce, Nigel ^d   Falck Ytter, Yngve ^e   Ghersi, Davina ^f,g   Guyatt, Gordon ^a   Hooijmans, Carlijn ^h   Langendam, Miranda ⁱ   Mandrioli, Daniele ^j   Mustafa, Reem A ^a,k   Rehfuess, Eva A ^l   Rooney, Andrew A ^b   Shea, Beverley ^m   Silbergeld, Ellen K ⁿ   Sutton, Patrice ^o   Wolfe, Mary S ^b   Woodruff, Tracey J ^o   Verbeek, Jos H ^p   Holloway, Alison C ^a   Santesso, Nancy ^a   Schünemann, Holger J ^a   more..

^a MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

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

^c UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^d UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

^e LOUIS STOKES CLEVELAND VA MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^g NATIONAL HEALTH AND MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL   (Australia)

^h RADBOUD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^j Ramazzini Institute   (Italy)

^k UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI KANSAS CITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^l UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

^m OTTAWA HOSPITAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

ⁿ JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^o UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^p FINNISH INSTITUTE OF OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH   (Finland)

more..

Author keywords

Environmental health; Evidence based; GRADE; Recommendations; Risk assessment; Risk of bias

Indexed keywords

BIOHAZARDS; GRADING; HEALTH HAZARDS; INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE; MEDICINE; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK MANAGEMENT;

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS; ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH; EVIDENCE-BASED; MANAGEMENT DECISIONS; METHOD ASSESSMENT; OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH; RECOMMENDATIONS; STRUCTURED PROCESS;

HEALTH RISKS;

DECISION MAKING; ENVIRONMENTAL RISK; HAZARD ASSESSMENT; HEALTH POLICY; OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE; PUBLIC HEALTH; RISK ASSESSMENT;

ARTICLE; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HAZARD ASSESSMENT; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH HAZARD; HUMAN; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; NONHUMAN; OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; EPIDEMIOLOGY; LITERATURE; REPRODUCIBILITY; STANDARDS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

ANIMALIA;

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH; EPIDEMIOLOGIC RESEARCH DESIGN; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 84955565066     PISSN: 01604120     EISSN: 18736750     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2016.01.004     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. Ahmed, F., Temte, J.L., Campos-Outcalt, D., Schünemann, H.J., Group, A.E.B.R.W., Methods for developing evidence-based recommendations by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Vaccine 29 (2011), 9171–9176.
2. Aiassa, E., Higgins, J., Frampton, G., Greiner, M., Afonso, A., Amzal, B., Deeks, J., Dorne, J.-L., Glanville, J., Lövei, G., Applicability and feasibility of systematic review for performing evidence-based risk assessment in food and feed safety. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 55 (2015), 1026–1034.
3. Andrews, J., Guyatt, G., Oxman, A.D., Alderson, P., Dahm, P., Falck-Ytter, Y., Nasser, M., Meerpohl, J., Post, P.N., Kunz, R., GRADE guidelines: 14. Going from evidence to recommendations: the significance and presentation of recommendations. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 66 (2013), 719–725.
4. Atkins, D., Eccles, M., Flottorp, S., Guyatt, G.H., Henry, D., Hill, S., Liberati, A., O'Connell, D., Oxman, A.D., Phillips, B., Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations I: critical appraisal of existing approaches The GRADE Working Group. BMC Health Serv. Res., 4, 2004, 38.
5. ATSDR, The Future of Science at ATSDR: A symposium. 2012, US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), Atlanta, GA.
6. Balshem, H., Helfand, M., Schunemann, H.J., Oxman, A.D., Kunz, R., Brozek, J., Vist, G.E., Falck-Ytter, Y., Meerpohl, J., Norris, S., Guyatt, G.H., GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 64 (2011), 401–406.
7. Bilotta, G.S., Milner, A.M., Boyd, I.L., Quality assessment tools for evidence from environmental science. Environ. Evid. 3 (2014), 1–14.
8. Bruce, N., Dora, C., Krzyzanowski, M., Adair-Rohani, H., Morawska, L., Wangchuk, T., Tackling the Health Burden from Household air Pollution: Development and Implementation of new WHO Guidelines. 2013.
9. Bruce, N., Pope, D., Rehfuess, E., Balakrishnan, K., Adair-Rohani, H., Dora, C., WHO indoor air quality guidelines on household fuel combustion: Strategy implications of new evidence on interventions and exposure–risk functions. Atmos. Environ., 2014 (Available online 27 August 2014).
10. Collaboration for Environmental Evidence. Guidelines for Systematic Review and Evidence Synthesis in Environmental Management. Version 4.2. Environmental Evidence. www.environmentalevidence.org/Documents/Guidelines/Guidelines4.2.pdf: 2013.
11. Djulbegovic, B., Kumar, A., Kaufman, R.M., Tobian, A., Guyatt, G.H., Quality of Evidence is a key Determinant for Making a Strong GRADE Guidelines Recommendation. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2015.
12. EFSA, Application of systematic review methodology to food and feed safety assessments to support decision making. EFSA J., 8, 2010, 1637.
13. EPA, EPA Announces Actions to Address Chemicals of Concern, Including Phthalates. 2009.
14. EPA, Design for the Environment Alternatives Assessments. 2011.
15. EPA, Hazard Identification. 2012.
16. EPA, Applying systematic review to assessments of health effects of chemical exposures. 2013, EPA Workshop, Washington, DC.
17. GRADE Working Group, Criteria for Applying or Using GRADE. http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org/intro.htm#criteria [accessed May 13, 2015], 2010.
18. Guyatt, G.H., Oxman, A.D., Akl, E.A., Kunz, R., Vist, G., Brozek, J., Norris, S., Falck-Ytter, Y., Glasziou, P., Debeer, H., Jaeschke, R., Rind, D., Meerpohl, J., Dahm, P., Schunemann, H.J., GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 64 (2011), 383–394.
19. Guyatt, G.H., Oxman, A.D., Kunz, R., Atkins, D., Brozek, J., Vist, G., Alderson, P., Glasziou, P., Falck-Ytter, Y., Schunemann, H.J., GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 64 (2011), 395–400.
20. Guyatt, G.H., Oxman, A.D., Kunz, R., Woodcock, J., Brozek, J., Helfand, M., Alonso-Coello, P., Falck-Ytter, Y., Jaeschke, R., Vist, G., Akl, E.A., Post, P.N., Norris, S., Meerpohl, J., Shukla, V.K., Nasser, M., Schunemann, H.J., GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence–indirectness. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 64 (2011), 1303–1310.
21. Guyatt, G.H., Oxman, A.D., Schunemann, H.J., Tugwell, P., Knottnerus, A., GRADE guidelines: a new series of articles in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 64 (2011), 380–382.
22. Guyatt, G.H., Oxman, A.D., Vist, G., Kunz, R., Brozek, J., Alonso-Coello, P., Montori, V., Akl, E.A., Djulbegovic, B., Falck-Ytter, Y., GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence—study limitations (risk of bias). J. Clin. Epidemiol. 64 (2011), 407–415.
23. Guyatt, G.H., Oxman, A.D., Vist, G.E., Kunz, R., Falck-Ytter, Y., Alonso-Coello, P., Schünemann, H.J., GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 336 (2008), 924–926.
24. Higgins, J.P., Altman, D.G., Gøtzsche, P.C., Jüni, P., Moher, D., Oxman, A.D., Savović, J., Schulz, K.F., Weeks, L., Sterne, J.A., The Cochrane collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ, 343, 2011, d5928.
25. Hooijmans, C.R., Rovers, M.M., de Vries, R.B., Leenaars, M., Ritskes-Hoitinga, M., Langendam, M.W., SYRCLE's risk of bias tool for animal studies. BMC Med. Res. Methodol., 14, 2014, 43.
26. IARC, IARC: Diesel Engine Exhaust Carcinogenic. Press release. 2012.
27. Ijaz, S., Verbeek, J., Seidler, A., Lindbohm, M.-L., Ojajarvi, A., Orsini, N., Costa, G., Neuvonen, K., Night-shift work and breast cancer—a systematic review and meta-analysis. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 39 (2013), 431–447.
28. Iorio, A., Spencer, F.A., Falavigna, M., Alba, C., Lang, E., Burnand, B., McGinn, T., Hayden, J., Williams, K., Shea, B., Use of GRADE for assessment of evidence about prognosis: rating confidence in estimates of event rates in broad categories of patients. BMJ, 350, 2015, h870.
29. Johnson, P.I., Sutton, P., Atchley, D., Koustas, E., Lam, J., Robinson, K., Sen, S., Axelrad, D., Woodruff, T.J., Applying the Navigation Guide: Case Study #1: The impact of developmental exposure to perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) on fetal growth (Final protocol). http://prhe.ucsf.edu/prhe/navigationguide.html [accessed 29 November, 2014], 2013.
30. Johnson, P.I., Sutton, P., Atchley, D.S., Koustas, E., Lam, J., Sen, S., Robinson, K.A., Axelrad, D.A., Woodruff, T.J., The Navigation Guide—evidence-based medicine meets environmental health: systematic review of human evidence for PFOA effects on fetal growth. Environ. Health Perspect. 122 (2014), 1028–1039.
31. Judson, R., Richard, A., Dix, D.J., Houck, K., Martin, M., Kavlock, R., Dellarco, V., Henry, T., Holderman, T., Sayre, P., The toxicity data landscape for environmental chemicals. Environ. Health Perspect. 117 (2009), 685–695.
32. Kavlock, R., Chandler, K., Houck, K., Hunter, S., Judson, R., Kleinstreuer, N., Knudsen, T., Martin, M., Padilla, S., Reif, D., Update on EPA's ToxCast program: providing high throughput decision support tools for chemical risk management. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 25 (2012), 1287–1302.
33. Koustas, E., Lam, J., Sutton, P., Johnson, P.I., Atchley, D.S., Sen, S., Robinson, K.A., Axelrad, D.A., Woodruff, T.J., The Navigation Guide—evidence-based medicine meets environmental health: systematic review of nonhuman evidence for PFOA effects on fetal growth. Environ. Health Perspect. 122 (2014), 1015–1027.
34. Lam, J., Koustas, E., Sutton, P., Johnson, P.I., Atchley, D.S., Sen, S., Robinson, K.A., Axelrad, D.A., Woodruff, T.J., The Navigation Guide—evidence-based medicine meets environmental health: integration of animal and human evidence for PFOA effects on fetal growth. Environ. Health Perspect. 122 (2014), 1040–1051.
35. Mandrioli, D., Silbergeld, E.K., Evidence from Toxicology: The Most Essential Science for Prevention. Environ. Health Perspect., 2015.
36. Mandrioli, D., Sillbergeld, E., Bero, L., Preperation of Evidence Based Toxicology Handbook. https://colloquium.cochrane.org/meetings/evidence-based-toxicology-handbook Cochrane Colloquium expert meeting, 2014 Hyderabad, India (September 26, 2014).
37. Merlin, T., Newton, S., Ellery, B., Milverton, J., Farah, C., Systematic Review of the Human Health Effects of Wind Farms. 2015.
38. Morgan, R.L., Thayer, K.A., Guyatt, G., Blain, R., Eftim, S., Ross, P., Santesso, N., Holloway, A.C., Schunemann, H.J., Assessing the Usability of ACROBAT-NRSI for Studies of Exposure and Intervention in Environmental Health Research. 2015, Cochrane Colloquium, Vienna, Austria.
39. Murray, H.E., Thayer, K.A., Implementing systematic review in toxicological profiles: ATSDR and NIEHS/NTP collaboration. J. Environ. Health 76 (2014), 34–35.
40. National Health and Medical Research Council, Procedures and requirements for meeting the 2011 NHMRC standard for clinical practice guidelines. 2011.
41. NCDC, Tools & Resources Regulatory Standards. http://www.epa.gov/cleandiesel/reg-prog.htm, 2014.
42. NRC, Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy. 2007, National Academies Press.
43. NRC, Review of EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Process. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18764 [accessed 1 January 2015], 2014.
44. NRC, Review of the Environmental Protection Agency's State-of-the-Science Evaluation of Nonmonotonic Dose–Response Relationships as they Apply to Endocrine Disrupters. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18608 [accessed 1 January 2015], 2014.
45. NTP, Board of Scientific Counselors June 25, 2013 Meeting. Meeting materials available at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/40246 [accessed 9 August 2014], 2013.
46. NTP, Handbook for Conducting a Literature-Based Health Assessment Using Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT) Approach for Systematic Review and Evidence Integration. January 9, 2015 release. Available at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/38673, 2015.
47. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, HEALTH EFFECTS OF DIESEL EXHAUST: A fact sheet by Cal/EPA's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the American Lung Association. http://oehha.ca.gov/public_info/facts/dieselfacts.html, 2007.
48. Pearce, N.E., Zahm, S.H., Andersen, A., Antó i Boqué, J.M., Cardis, E., Grimsrud, T.K., Kjaerheim, K., Kogevinas, M., Porta Serra, M., IARC Monographs: 40 Years of Evaluating Carcinogenic Hazards to Humans. 2015.
49. Rehfuess, E.A., Akl, E.A., Current experience with applying the GRADE approach to public health interventions: an empirical study. BMC Public Health, 13(9), 2013.
50. Richardson, W.S., Wilson, M.C., Nishikawa, J., Hayward, R.S., The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence-based decisions. ACP J. Club 123 (1995), A12–A13.
51. Rooney, A.A., Boyles, A.L., Wolfe, M.S., Bucher, J.R., Thayer, K.A., Systematic review and evidence integration for literature-based environmental health science assessments. Environ. Health Perspect., 2014.
52. Schünemann, H.J., Methodological idiosyncracies, frameworks and challenges of non-pharmaceutical and non-technical treatment interventions. Z. Evid. Fortbild. Qual. Gesundhwes. 107 (2013), 214–220.
53. Schünemann, H.J., Best, D., Vist, G., Oxman, A.D., Letters, numbers, symbols and words: how to communicate grades of evidence and recommendations. Can. Med. Assoc. J. 169 (2003), 677–680.
54. Schünemann, H., Brożek, J., Oxman, G., Handbook for Grading the Quality of Evidence and the Strength of Recommendations Using the GRADE Approach. 2013.
55. Schünemann, H., Hill, S., Guyatt, G., Akl, E.A., Ahmed, F., The GRADE approach and Bradford Hill's criteria for causation. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 65 (2011), 392–395.
56. Schünemann, H.J., Oxman, A.D., Brozek, J., Glasziou, P., Jaeschke, R., Vist, G.E., Williams, J.W. Jr., Kunz, R., Craig, J., Montori, V.M., Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests and strategies. BMJ 336 (2008), 1106–1110.
57. Schünemann, H., Oxman, A., Higgins, J., Vist, G., Glasziou, P., Guyatt, G., Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1. 0 (updated March 2011). 2011.
58. Schünemann, H.J., Oxman, A.D., Vist, G.E., Higgins, J.P.T., Deeks, J.J., P., G., Guyatt, G.H., on behalf of the Cochrane Applicability and Recommendations Methods Group, Chapter 12: Interpreting results and drawing conclusions. Higgins, J.P.T., Green, S., (eds.) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 510 [updated March 2011]: The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011, 2012 Available at www.cochrane-handbook.org. [accessed 13 July 2012].
59. Silbergeld, E., Scherer, R.W., Evidence-based toxicology: strait is the gate, but the road is worth taking. ALTEX 30 (2013), 67–73.
60. Spencer, F.A., Iorio, A., You, J., Murad, M.H., Schünemann, H.J., Vandvik, P.O., Crowther, M.A., Pottie, K., Lang, E.S., Meerpohl, J.J., Uncertainties in baseline risk estimates and confidence in treatment effects. BMJ, 345, 2012, e7401.
61. Thornton, J., Alderson, P., Tan, T., Turner, C., Latchem, S., Shaw, E., Ruiz, F., Reken, S., Mugglestone, M.A., Hill, J., Introducing GRADE across the NICE clinical guideline program. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 66 (2013), 124–131.
62. Tice, R.R., Austin, C.P., Kavlock, R.J., Bucher, J.R., Improving the human hazard characterization of chemicals: a Tox21 update. Environ. Health Perspect. 121 (2013), 756–765.
63. Treweek, S., Oxman, A.D., Alderson, P., Bossuyt, P.M., Brandt, L., Brozek, J., Davoli, M., Flottorp, S., Harbour, R., Hill, S., Liberati, A., Liira, H., Schunemann, H.J., Rosenbaum, S., Thornton, J., Vandvik, P.O., Alonso-Coello, P., Consortium, D., Developing and evaluating communication strategies to support informed decisions and practice based on evidence (DECIDE): protocol and preliminary results. Implement. Sci., 8, 2013, 6.
64. Verbeek, J.H., Kateman, E., Morata, T.C., Dreschler, W.A., Mischke, C., Interventions to Prevent Occupational Noise-Induced Hearing Loss. 2012, The Cochrane Library.
65. Vesterinen, H.M., Johnson, P.I., Atchley, D.S., Sutton, P., Lam, J., Zlatnik, M.G., Sen, S., Woodruff, T.J., Fetal growth and maternal glomerular filtration rate: a systematic review. J. Matern. Fetal Neonatal Med., 2014, 1–6.
66. Viswanathan, M., Ansari, M.T., Berkman, N.D., Chang, S., Hartling, L., McPheeters, M., Santaguida, P.L., Shamliyan, T., Singh, K., Tsertsvadze, A., Assessing the Risk of Bias of Individual Studies in Systematic Reviews of Health Care Interventions. 2012.
67. Vyas, M.V., Garg, A.X., Iansavichus, A.V., Costella, J., Donner, A., Laugsand, L.E., Janszky, I., Mrkobrada, M., Parraga, G., Hackam, D.G., Shift work and vascular events: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ, 345, 2012, e4800.
68. Whaley, P., Halsall, C., Agerstrand, M., Benford, D., Aiassa, E., Bilotta, G.S., Coggon, D., Dempsey, C., Duarte-Davidson, R., Lipworth, S., Mackenzie Ross, S., Martin, O., Meads, C., Meyer-Baron, M., Miller, J.W., Pease, C., Rooney, A., Sapiets, A., Stewart, G., Taylor, D., Implementing Systematic Review Techniques in Chemical Risk Assessment: Challenges, Opportunities and Recommendations. Environ. Int. 92–93 (2016), 556–564.
69. WHO, Indoor air quality guidelines: household fuel combustion. 2014.
70. WHO, WHO Handbook for guideline development. 2014, World Health Organization.
71. WHO, Environmental Health. http://www.who.int/topics/environmental_health/en/, 2015.
72. Woodruff, T.J., Sutton, P., An evidence-based medicine methodology to bridge the gap between clinical and environmental health sciences. Health Aff. 30 (2011), 931–937.
73. Woodruff, T.J., Sutton, P., The Navigation Guide systematic review methodology: a rigorous and transparent method for translating environmental health science into better health outcomes. Environ. Health Perspect., 2014.