A proposed framework for the systematic review and integrated assessment (SYRINA) of endocrine disrupting chemicals

Environmental Health: A Global Access Science Source

Volumn 15, Issue 1, 2016, Pages

  Vandenberg, Laura N ^a   Ågerstrand, Marlene ^b   Beronius, Anna ^c   Beausoleil, Claire ^d   Bergman, Åke ^b,e   Bero, Lisa A ^f   Bornehag, Carl Gustaf ^g,h   Boyer, C Scott ^e   Cooper, Glinda S ⁱ   Cotgreave, Ian ^c   Gee, David ^j   Grandjean, Philippe ^k   Guyton, Kathryn Z ^l   Hass, Ulla ^m   Heindel, Jerrold J ⁿ   Jobling, Susan ^j   Kidd, Karen A ^o   Kortenkamp, Andreas ^j   Macleod, Malcolm R ^p   Martin, Olwenn V ^j   Norinder, Ulf ^e   Scheringer, Martin ^q   Thayer, Kristina A ⁿ   Toppari, Jorma ^r   Whaley, Paul ^s   Woodruff, Tracey J ^t   Rudén, Christina ^b   more..

^a UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS   (United States)

^b STOCKHOLM UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^c KAROLINSKA INSTITUTE   (Sweden)

^d FRENCH AGENCY FOR FOOD   (France)

^e Swedish Toxicology Sciences Research Center   (Sweden)

^f UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^g KARLSTAD UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^h MOUNT SINAI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

ⁱ U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY   (United States)

^j BRUNEL UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^k UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN DENMARK   (Denmark)

^l INTERNATIONAL AGENCY FOR RESEARCH ON CANCER   (France)

^m TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF DENMARK   (Denmark)

ⁿ NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES   (United States)

^o UNIVERSITY OF NEW BRUNSWICK   (Canada)

^p UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

^q ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^r TURKU UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Finland)

^s LANCASTER UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^t UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

Adverse effect; Endocrine disrupting activity; Endocrine disrupting chemicals; Epidemiology; Evidence integration; In vivo; Strength of evidence; Study evaluation; Systematic review; Weight of evidence

Indexed keywords

ENDOCRINE DISRUPTOR; POLLUTANT;

ASSESSMENT METHOD; DECISION MAKING; ENDOCRINE DISRUPTOR; EPIDEMIOLOGY; INTEGRATED APPROACH; METHODOLOGY; NUMERICAL METHOD; STUDY METHOD; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS; WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION;

ARTICLE; CHEMICAL SAFETY; COMPUTER MODEL; DECISION MAKING; EPIDEMIOLOGY; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; EXPOSURE; HUMAN; IN VITRO STUDY; IN VIVO STUDY; MAMMAL; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT; TOXICITY TESTING; UNCERTAINTY; WILDLIFE; WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION; ANIMAL; ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; POLLUTANT; PROCEDURES; RISK ASSESSMENT; THEORETICAL MODEL; TOXICITY;

ANIMALIA;

ANIMALS; ENDOCRINE DISRUPTORS; ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTANTS; HUMANS; MODELS, THEORETICAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; TOXICITY TESTS;

EID: 84979687804     PISSN: None     EISSN: 1476069X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s12940-016-0156-6     Document Type: Article

References (97)

1. Colborn T, vom Saal FS, Soto AM. Developmental effects of endocrine-disrupting chemicals in wildlife and humans. Environ Health Perspect. 1993;101(5):378-84.
2. Kavlock RJ, Daston GP, DeRosa C, Fenner-Crisp P, Gray LE, Kaattari S, Lucier G, Luster M, Mac MJ, Maczka C, et al. Research needs for the risk assessment of health and environmental effects of endocrine disruptors: a report of the U.S. EPA-sponsored workshop. Environ Health Perspect. 1996;104(Supp 4):715-40.
3. Diamanti-Kandarakis E, Bourguignon JP, Guidice LC, Hauser R, Prins GS, Soto AM, Zoeller RT, Gore AC. Endocrine-disrupting chemical: an Endocrine Society scientific statement. Endocr Rev. 2009;30:293-342.
4. Gore AC, Heindel JJ, Zoeller RT. Endocrine disruption for endocrinologists (and others). Endocrinology. 2006;147 Suppl 6:S1-3.
5. Bergman A, Andersson AM, Becher G, van den Berg M, Blumberg B, Bjerregaard P, Bornehag CG, Bornman R, Brandt I, Brian JV, et al. Science and policy on endocrine disrupters must not be mixed: a reply to a "common sense" intervention by toxicology journal editors. Environ Health. 2013;12:69.
6. Barouki R, Gluckman PD, Grandjean P, Hanson M, Heindel JJ. Developmental origins of non-communicable disease: implications for research and public health. Environ Health. 2012;11:42.
7. Heindel JJ, Balbus J, Birnbaum L, Brune-Drisse MN, Grandjean P, Gray K, Landrigan PJ, Sly PD, Suk W, Cory Slechta D, et al. Developmental origins of health and disease: integrating environmental influences. Endocrinology. 2015;156(10):3416-21.
8. Balbus JM, Barouki R, Birnbaum LS, Etzel RA, Gluckman PD, Grandjean P, Hancock C, Hanson MA, Heindel JJ, Hoffman K, et al. Early-life prevention of non-communicable diseases. Lancet. 2013;381(9860):3-4.
9. Trasande L, Zoeller RT, Hass U, Kortenkamp A, Grandjean P, Myers JP, DiGangi J, Bellanger M, Hauser R, Legler J, et al. Estimating Burden and Disease Costs of Exposure to Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals in the European Union. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015;100(4):1245-55.
10. Schug TT, Janesick A, Blumberg B, Heindel JJ. Endocrine disrupting chemicals and disease susceptibility. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2011;127(3-5):204-15.
11. Grun F, Blumberg B. Minireview: the case for obesogens. Mol Endocrinol. 2009;23(8):1127-34.
12. Zoeller RT, Brown TR, Doan LL, Gore AC, Skakkebaek NE, Soto AM, Woodruff TJ, Vom Saal FS. Endocrine-disrupting chemicals and public health protection: a statement of principles from the Endocrine Society. Endocrinology. 2012;153(9):4097-110.
13. Vandenberg LN, Ehrlich S, Belcher SM, Ben-Jonathan N, Dolinoy DC, Hugo ER, Hunt PA, Newbold RR, Rubin BS, Saili KS, et al. Low dose effects of Bisphenol A: An integrated review of in vitro, laboratory animal and epidemiology studies. Endocrine Disruptors. 2013;1(1):e25078.
14. Damstra T, Barlow S, Bergman A, Kavlock RJ, van der Kraak G, editors. Global assessment of the state-of-the-science of endocrine disruptors. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2002.
15. WHO. In: WHO/UNEP, editor. State of the science of endocrine disrupting chemicals - 2012. An assessment of the state of the science of endocrine disruptors prepared by a group of experts for the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and WHO. 2013.
16. Vandenberg LN, Colborn T, Hayes TB, Heindel JJ, Jacobs DR, Lee DH, Myers JP, Shioda T, Soto AM, Vom Saal FS, et al. Regulatory decisions on endocrine disrupting chemicals should be based on the principles of endocrinology. Reprod Toxicol. 2013;38C:1-15.
17. Woodruff TJ, Zeise L, Axelrad DA, Guyton KZ, Janssen S, Miller M, Schwartz JM, Alexeeff G, Anderson H, et al. Meeting report: moving upstream-evaluating adverse upstream end points for improved risk assessment and decision-making. Environ Health Perspect. 2008;116(11):1568-75.
18. Bergman A, Heindel JJ, Kasten T, Kidd KA, Jobling S, Neira M, Zoeller RT, Becher G, Bjerregaard P, Bornman R, et al. The impact of endocrine disruption: a consensus statement on the state of the science. Environ Health Perspect. 2013;121(4):A104-6.
19. Kortenkamp A, Martin O, Faust M, Evans R, McKinlay R, Orton F, Rosivatz E. State of the Art Assessment of Endocrine Disruptors, Final Report. Brussels: European Commission; 2011. p. 442. vol. available from: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/endocrine/pdf/sota-edc-final-report.pdf. Accessed 24 Sept 2015.
20. Gore AC, Chappell VA, Fenton SE, Flaws JA, Nadal A, Prins GS, Toppari J, Zoeller RT. EDC-2: The Endocrine Society's Second Scientific Statement on Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals. Endocr Rev. 2015;36(6):E1-150.
21. European Commission. European Workshop on the impact of endocrine disrupters on human health and wild-life. UK: Weybridge; 1997.
22. European Environment Agency, editor. The impacts of endocrine disrupters on wildlife, people and their environments. The Weybridge + 15 (1996-2011) report: EEA Technical report. 2012.
23. Global assessment of the state-of-the-science of endocrine disruptors [ http://www.who.int/ipcs/publications/new-issues/endocrine-disruptors/en/ ]. Accessed 08 Oct 2015.
24. Silva V, Grande AJ, Martimbianco ALC, Riera R, Carvalho APV. Overview of systematic reviews - a new type of study: part I: why and for whom? Sao Paulo Med J. 2012;130:398-404.
25. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, Norris S, Falck-Ytter Y, Glasziou P, Debeer H, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):383-94.
26. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, Schunemann HJ. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336(7650):924-6.
27. Higgins J, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). 2011. http://handbook.cochrane.org/. Accessed 3 Feb 2013.
28. EFSA. Guidance of EFSA Application of systematic review methodology to food and feed safety assessments to support decision making. EFSA J. 2010;8:90.
29. Woodruff TJ, Sutton P. An evidence-based medicine methodology to bridge the gap between clinical and environmental health sciences. Health Aff. 2011;30(5):931-7.
30. Woodruff TJ, Sutton P. Pulling back the curtain: improving reviews in environmental health. Environ Health Perspect. 2010;118(8):a326-7.
31. IARC. Preamble: IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Preamble/CurrentPreamble.pdf. Lyon, France; 2006. Accessed 10 Feb 2016.
32. Antman EM, Lau J, Kupelnick B, Mosteller F, Chalmers TC. A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction. JAMA. 1992;268(2):240-8.
33. Molander L, Agerstrand M, Beronius A, Hanberg A, Ruden C. Science in Risk Assessment and Policy (SciRAP) - An Online Resource for Evaluating and Reporting In Vivo (Eco) Toxicity Studies. Hum Ecol Risk Assess. 2015;21:753-62.
34. Smith MT, Guyton KZ, Gibbons CF, Fritz JM, Portier CJ, Rusyn I, DeMarini DM, Caldwell JC, Kavlock RJ, Lambert P, et al. Key characteristics of carcinogens as a basis for organizing data on mechanisms of carcinogenesis. Environ Health Perspect. 2016;124(6):713-21.
35. Rooney AA, Boyles AL, Wolfe MS, Bucher JR, Thayer KA. Systematic Review and Evidence Integration for Literature-Based Environmental Health Science Assessments. Environ Health Perspect. 2014;122(7):711-8.
36. Thayer KA, Wolfe MS, Rooney AA, Boyles AL, Bucher JR, Birnbaum LS. Intersection of systematic review methodology with the NIH reproducibility initiative. Environ Health Perspect. 2014;122(7):A176-7.
37. NTP. Handbook for Preparing Report on Carcinogens Monograph. In. Edited by Carcinogens OotRo. available at: https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/handbook/roc-handbook-508.pdf; 2015. Accessed 19 Mar 2016.
38. Woodruff TJ, 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;122:1007.
39. Whaley P, Halsall C, Agerstrand M, Aiassa E, Benford D, Bilotta G, Coggon D, Collins C, Dempsey C, Duarte-Davidson R et al. Implementing systematic review techniques in chemical risk assessment: challenges, opportunities and recommendations. Environ Int. 2015, in press.
40. Agerstrand M, Beronius A. Weight of Evidence evaluation and Systematic Review in EU chemical risk assessment: Foundation is laid but guidance is needed. Environ Int. 2015, in press.
41. Beronius A, Vandenberg LN. Using systematic reviews for hazard and risk assessment of endocrine disrupting chemicals. Rev Endocr Metab Disord. 2015;16(4):273-87.
42. Beronius A, Molander L, Rudén C, Hanberg A. Facilitating the use of non-standard in vivo studies in health risk assessment of chemicals: a proposal to improve evaluation criteria and reporting. J Appl Toxicol. 2014;34(6):607-17.
43. Myers JP, vom Saal FS, Akingbemi BT, Arizono K, Belcher S, Colborn T, Chahoud I, Crain DA, Farabollini F, Guillette LJ, et al. Why public health agencies cannot depend upon 'Good Laboratory Practices' as a criterion for selecting data: the case of bisphenol-A. Environ Health Perspect. 2009;117(3):309-15.
44. Zoeller RT, Vandenberg LN. Assessing dose-response relationships for endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs): a focus on non-monotonicity. Environ Health. 2015;14(1):42.
45. Krauth D, Woodruff TJ, Bero L. Instruments for assessing risk of bias and other methodological criteria of published animal studies: a systematic review. Environ Health Perspect. 2013;121(9):985-92.
46. Gore AC, Balthazart J, Bikle D, Carpenter DO, Crews D, Czernichow P, Diamanti-Kandarakis E, Dores RM, Grattan D, Hof PR, et al. Policy decisions on endocrine disruptors should be based on science across disciplines: a response to Dietrich et al. Endocrinology. 2013;154(11):3957-60.
47. Slovic P, Malmfors T, Mertz CK, Neil N, Purchase IFH. Evaluating chemical risks: results of a survey of the British Toxicology Society. Hum Exp Toxicol. 1997;16(6):289-304.
48. Krimsky S. The weight of scientific evidence in policy and law. Am J Public Health. 2005;95 Suppl 1:S129-36.
49. Mallor F, Garcia-Olaverri C, Gomez-Elvira S, Mateo-Collazas P. Expert judgment-based risk assessment using statistical scenario analysis: a case study-running the bulls in Pamplona (Spain). Risk Anal. 2008;28(4):1003-19.
50. Zoeller RT, Bergman A, Becher G, Bjerregaard P, Bornman R, Brandt I, Iguchi T, Jobling S, Kidd KA, Kortenkamp A, et al. A path forward in the debate over health impacts of endocrine disrupting chemicals. Environ Health. 2014;13(1):118.
51. AHRQ (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality). AHRQ Training Modules for the Systematic Reviews Methods Guide. 2014. Available at http://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/index.cfm/tools-and-resources/slide-library/. Accessed 11 Oct 2013.
52. NTP (National Toxicology Program). Handbook for Conducting a Literature-Based Health Assessment Using Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT) Approach for Systematic Review and Evidence Integration. 2015. January 9, 2015 release. Available at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/38673. Accessed 27 Apr 2016.
53. Johnson PI, Sutton P, Atchley DS, Koustas E, Lam J, Sen S, Robinson KA, Axelrad DA, Woodruff TJ. The Navigation Guide-Evidence-Based Medicine Meets Environmental Health: Systematic Review of Human Evidence for PFOA Effects on Fetal Growth. Environ Health Perspect. 2014;122(10):1028-39.
54. Koustas E, Lam J, Sutton P, Johnson PI, Atchley DS, Sen S, Robinson KA, Axelrad DA, Woodruff TJ. The Navigation Guide-Evidence-Based Medicine Meets Environmental Health: Systematic Review of Nonhuman Evidence for PFOA Effects on Fetal Growth. Environ Health Perspect. 2014;122(10):1015-27.
55. Lam J, Koustas E, Sutton P, Johnson PI, Atchley DS, Sen S, Robinson KA, Axelrad DA, Woodruff TJ. The Navigation Guide-Evidence-Based Medicine Meets Environmental Health: Integration of Animal and Human Evidence for PFOA Effects on Fetal Growth. Environ Health Perspect. 2014;122(10):1040-51.
56. Treweek S, Oxman AD, Alderson P, Bossuyt PM, Brandt L, Brozek J, Davoli M, Flottorp S, Harbour R, Hill S, et al. Developing and Evaluating Communication Strategies to Support Informed Decisions and Practice Based on Evidence (DECIDE): protocol and preliminary results. Implementation Science. 2013;8:6.
57. de Vries RB, Wever KE, Avey MT, Stephens ML, Sena ES, Leenaars M. The usefulness of systematic reviews of animal experiments for the design of preclinical and clinical studies. ILAR J. 2014;55(3):427-37.
58. Sena ES, Currie GL, McCann SK, Macleod MR, Howells DW. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis of preclinical studies: why perform them and how to appraise them critically. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2014;34(5):737-42.
59. de Vries RBM, Hooijmans CR, Langendam MW, van Luijk J, Leenaars M, Ritskes-Hoitinga M, Wever KE. A protocol format for the preparation, registration and publication of systematic reviews of animal intervention studies. Evid Based Preclinical Med. 2015;2(1):1-9.
60. Booth A, Clarke M, Dooley G, Ghersi D, Moher D, Petticrew M, et al. The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2012;1(2).
61. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):1006-12.
62. Rathbone J, Carter M, Hoffmann T, Glasziou P. Better duplicate detection for systematic reviewers: evaluation of Systematic Review Assistant-Deduplication Module. Syst Rev. 2015;4:6.
63. Tsafnat G, Glasziou P, Choong MK, Dunn A, Galgani F, Coiera E. Systematic review automation technologies. Syst Rev. 2014;3:74.
64. IOM (Institute of Medicine). Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews. Washington: Press NA; 2011.
65. National Academies of Sciences. Review of EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Process. In: Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology; Division on Earth and Life Studies; National Research Council, editors; 2014. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK230063/. Accessed 15 Jul 2015.
66. (ECHA) ECA. Chapter R.4: Evaluation of available information. In: Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment. 2011. https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13643/information-requirements-r4-en.pdf. Accessed 28 Dec 2015.
67. Sterne J, Higgins J, Reeves BC. ACROBAT-NRSI: A Cochrane Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool for Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions. www.riskofbias.info/home/resources. Accessed 14 Jan 2016.
68. Blair A, Stewart P, Lubin JH, Forastiere F. Methodological issues regarding confounding and exposure misclassification in epidemiological studies of occupational exposures. Am J Ind Med. 2007;50(3):199-207.
69. Rooney AA, Cooper GS, Jahnke GD, Lam J, Morgan RL, Boyles AL, Ratcliffe JM, Kraft AD, Schunemann HJ, Schwingl P, et al. How credible are the study results? Evaluating and applying internal validity tools to literature-based assessments of environmental health hazards. Environ Int. 2016;92:617-29.
70. Klimisch HJ, Andreae M, Tillmann U. A systematic approach for evaluating the quality of experimental toxicological and ecotoxicological data. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 1997;25(1):1-5.
71. Beronius A, Hanberg A, Zilliacus J, Ruden C. Bridging the gap between academic research and regulatory health risk assessment of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals. Curr Opin Pharmacol. 2014;19:99-104.
72. Beronius A, Johansson N, Ruden C, Hanberg A. The influence of study design and sex-differences on results from developmental neurotoxicity studies of bisphenol A: implications for toxicity testing. Toxicology. 2013;311(1-2):13-26.
73. Kortenkamp A, Martin O, Evans R, Orton F, McKinlay R, Rosivatz E, Faust M. Response to A critique of the European Commission Document, "State of the Art Assessment of Endocrine Disrupters" by Rhomberg and colleagues - letter to the editor. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2012;42(9):787-9. author reply 790-781.
74. Agerstrand M, Kuster A, Bachmann J, Breitholtz M, Ebert I, Rechenberg B, Ruden C. Reporting and evaluation criteria as means towards a transparent use of ecotoxicity data for environmental risk assessment of pharmaceuticals. Environ Pollut. 2011;159(10):2487-92.
75. Myers JP, Zoeller RT, vom Saal FS. A clash of old and new scientific concepts in toxicity, with important implications for public health. Environ Health Perspect. 2009;117(11):1652-5.
76. vom Saal FS, Akingbemi BT, Belcher SM, Crain DA, Crews D, Guidice LC, Hunt PA, Leranth C, Myers JP, Nadal A, et al. Flawed experimental design reveals the need for guidelines requiring appropriate positive controls in endocrine disruption research. Toxicol Sci. 2010;115(2):612-3.
77. vom Saal FS, Myers JP. Good laboratory practices are not synonymous with good scientific practices, accurate reporting, or valid data. Environ Health Perspect. 2010;118(2):A60.
78. (ECHA) ECA. Chapter R.6: QSARs and grouping of chemicals. In: Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessments. 2008. https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13632/information-requirements-r6-en.pdf. Accessed 28 Dec 2015.
79. OECD. Guidance document on the validation of (Quantitative) Structure-Activity Relationships [(Q)SAR] Models. 2007. Available from http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=env/jm/mono%282007%292&doclanguage=en. Accessed 14 Feb 2015.
80. Hill AB. The Environment and Disease: Association or Causation? Proc R Soc Med. 1965;58:295-300.
81. Schunemann H, Hill S, Guyatt G, Akl EA, Ahmed F. The GRADE approach and Bradford Hill's criteria for causation. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2011;65(5):392-5.
82. Rooney AA, Cooper GS, Jahnke GD, Lam J, Morgan RL, Boyles AL, Ratcliffe JM, Kraft AD, Schünemann HJ, Schwingl P, et al. How credible are the study results? Evaluating and applying internal validity tools to literature-based assessments of environmental health hazards. Environ Int. 2016. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2016.01.005.
83. Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Sultan S, Brozek J, Glasziou P, Alonso-Coello P, Atkins D, Kunz R, Montori V, Jaeschke R, et al. GRADE guidelines: 11. Making an overall rating of confidence in effect estimates for a single outcome and for all outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(2):151-7.
84. Boyles AL, Harris SF, Rooney AA, Thayer KA. Forest Plot Viewer: a new graphing tool. Epidemiology. 2011;22(5):746-7.
85. Vesterinen HM, Sena ES, Egan KJ, Hirst TC, Churolov L, Currie GL, Antonic A, Howells DW, Macleod MR. Meta-analysis of data from animal studies: a practical guide. J Neurosci Methods. 2014;221:92-102.
86. Fu R, Gartlehner G, Grant M, Shamliyan T, Sedrakyan A, Wilt TJ, Griffith L, Oremus M, Raina P, Ismaila A, et al. Conducting quantitative synthesis when comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the Effective Health Care Program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(11):1187-97.
87. Gee D. Late lessons from early warnings: Toward realism and precaution with endocrine-disrupting substances. Environ Health Perspect. 2006;114 Suppl 1:152-60.
88. Goodman S. A dirty dozen: twelve p-value misconceptions. Semin Hematol. 2008;45(3):135-40.
89. Ioannidis JP. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2005;2(8):e124.
90. Goodman S, Greenland S. Why most published research findings are false: problems in the analysis. PLoS Med. 2007;4(4):e168.
91. Denison RA. Not that innocent: A comparative analysis of Canadian, European Union and United States policies on industrial chemials. Washington: Environmental Defense; 2007.
92. National Research Council. Science and decisions: advancing risk assessment. Washington: National Academy Press; 2009.
93. Hansen SF, Krayer von Krauss MP, Tickner JA. Categorizing mistaken false positives in regulation of human and environmental health. Risk Anal. 2007;27(1):255-69.
94. Hansen SF, Tickner JA. The precautionary principle and false alarms - lessons learned. In: European Environment Agency. Rosendahls-Schultz Grafisk: Copenhagen; 2013.
95. IPCS. Guidance document on evaluating and expressing uncertainty in hazard characterization. In: WHO, editor. Harmonization of Approaches to the Assessment of Risk from Exposure to Chemicals. 2014.
96. Vandenberg LN. Low-dose effects of hormones and endocrine disruptors. Vitam Horm. 2014;94:129-65.
97. Vandenberg LN, Colborn T, Hayes TB, Heindel JJ, Jacobs Jr DR, Lee DH, Shioda T, Soto AM, vom Saal FS, Welshons WV, et al. Hormones and endocrine-disrupting chemicals: low-dose effects and nonmonotonic dose responses. Endocr Rev. 2012;33(3):378-455.