Principles and process for dealing with data and evidence in scientific assessments

EFSA Journal

Volumn 13, Issue 6, 2015, Pages

 

^a NONE   (Italy)

Author keywords

data collection; evidence appraisal; evidence integration; relevance; reliability; uncertainty assessment; weight of evidence

Indexed keywords

EID: 85020509392     PISSN: None     EISSN: 18314732     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2015.4121     Document Type: Article

References (89)

1. Berkman ND, Lohr KN, Ansari M, McDonagh M, Balk E, Whitlock E, Reston J, Bass E, Butler M, Gartlehner G, Hartling L, Kane R, McPheeters M, Morgan L, Morton SC, Viswanathan M, Sista P, Chang S, 2013. Grading the Strength of a Body of Evidence When Assessing Health Care Interventions for the Effective Health Care. Program of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: An Update. Methods Guide for Comparative Effectiveness Reviews (Prepared by the RTI-UNC Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290–2007–10056-I). AHRQ Publication No. 13(14)-EHC130-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. November 2013. http://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/ehc/products/457/1752/methods-guidance-grading-evidence-131118.pdf.
2. Bradford Hill A, 1965. The Environment and Disease: Association or Causation? Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine 58 (5): 295–300.
3. EFSA, 2010. Application of systematic review methodology to food and feed safety assessments to support decision making. EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1637. 90 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1637.
4. EFSA, 2013. International Framework Dealing with Human Risk Assessment of Combined Exposure to Multiple Chemicals. EFSA Journal 2013;11(7):3313, 69pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3313.
5. EFSA, 2014a. Guidance on Expert Knowledge Elicitation in Food and Feed Safety Risk Assessment. EFSA Journal 2014;12(6):3734. 278 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3734.
6. EFSA, 2014b. Guidance on Statistical Reporting. EFSA Journal 2014;12(12):3908, 18 pp., doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3908.
7. EFSA AHAW Panel (EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare), 2009. Guidance on Good Practice in Conducting Scientific Assessments in animal health using modelling. EFSA Journal 2009; 7(12):1419. 38 pp. doi:10.2093/j.efsa.2009.1419.
8. EFSA ANS Panel (EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food), 2012. Guidance for submission for food additive evaluations. EFSA Journal 2012; 10(7):2760. 60 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2760.
9. EFSA BIOHAZ, CONTAM, AHAW Panels (EFSA Panels on Biological Hazards, on Contaminants in the Food Chain, and on Animal Health and Welfare), 2012. Scientific Opinion on the public health hazards to be covered by inspection of meat (poultry). EFSA Journal 2012;10(6):2741. 179 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2741.
10. EFSA GMO Panel (EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms), 2010a. Scientific Opinion on the assessment of potential impacts of genetically modified plants on non-target organisms. EFSA Journal 2010; 8(11):1877. 72 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1877.
11. EFSA GMO Panel (EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms), 2010b. Guidance on the environmental risk assessment of genetically modified plants. EFSA Journal 2010;8(11):1879. 111 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1879.
12. EFSA PPR Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues), 2008. Scientific Opinion on a request from the EFSA evaluate the suitability of existing methodologies and, if appropriate, the identification of new approaches to assess cumulative and synergistic risks from pesticides to human health with a view to set MRLs for those pesticides in the frame of Regulation (EC) 396/2005. The EFSA Journal 2008, 704, 85 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2008.705.
13. EFSA PPR Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues), 2009. Scientific Opinion on risk assessment for a selected group of pesticides from the triazole group to test possible methodologies to assess cumulative effects from exposure throughout food from these pesticides on human health on request of EFSA. EFSA Journal 2009;7(9):1167, 104 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2009.1167.
14. EFSA PPR Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues), 2010. Scientific Opinion on the development of specific protection goal options for environmental risk assessment of pesticides, in particular in relation to the revision of the Guidance Documents on Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecotoxicology (SANCO/3268/2001 and SANCO/10329/2002). EFSA Journal 2010;8(10):1821. 55 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1821.
15. EFSA PPR Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues), 2012. Scientific Opinion on the science behind the development of a risk assessment of Plant Protection Products on bees (Apis mellifera, Bombus spp. and solitary bees). EFSA Journal (2012);10(5):2668, 275 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2668.
16. EFSA PPR Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues), 2013a. Guidance on tiered risk assessment for plant protection products for aquatic organisms in edge-of-field surface waters. EFSA Journal 2013;11(7):3290, 268 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3290.
17. EFSA PPR Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues), 2013b. Scientific Opinion on the identification of pesticides to be included in cumulative assessment groups on the basis of their toxicological profile. EFSA Journal 2013;11(7):3293. 131 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3293.
18. EFSA PPR Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues), 2014. Scientific Opinion on good modelling practice in the context of mechanistic effect models for risk assessment of plant protection products. EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3589, 92 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3589.
19. EFSA Scientific Committee, 2009. Guidance of the Scientific Committee on transparency in the scientific aspects of risk assessment carried out by EFSA. Part 2: general principles. The EFSA Journal (2009) 1051, 22 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2009.1051.
20. EFSA Scientific Committee, 2013a. Scientific Opinion on the hazard assessment of endocrine disruptors: scientific criteria for identification of endocrine disruptors and appropriateness of existing test methods for assessing effects mediated by these substances on human health and the environment. EFSA Journal 2013;11(3):3132. 84 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3132.
21. EFSA Scientific Committee, 2013b. Scientific Opinion on Priority topics for the development of risk assessment guidance by EFSA's Scientific Committee. EFSA Journal 2013;11(8):3345, 20 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3345.
22. EFSA Scientific Committee, 2014. Guidance on the structure and content of the EFSA scientific opinions and statements. EFSA Journal 2014;12(9) 3808, 10 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3808.
23. EHP (Environmental Health Perspectives), 2014. The Navigation Guide: Systematic Review for the Environmental Health Sciences. http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/122-A283/ (4 papers) and Woodruff T and Sutton P, 2014. The Navigation Guide. The Navigation Guide Systematic Review Methodology: A Rigorous and Transparent Method for Translating Environmental Health Science into Better Health Outcomes. http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/advpub/2014/6/ehp.1307175.pdf.
24. FAO/WHO (Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization), 2003. Hazard characterization for pathogens in food and water. Guidelines. Microbiological Risk Assessment Series, No. 3. 61 p. FAO, Rome, Italy.
25. FAO/WHO (Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization), 2008. Exposure Assessment of Microbiological Hazards in Food. Guidelines. Microbiological Risk Assessment Series, No. 7. 102 p. AO, Rome, Italy.
26. FAO/WHO (Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization), 2009. Risk characterization of microbiological hazards in food of Microbiological Hazards in Food. Guidelines. Microbiological Risk Assessment Series, No.17. FAO, Rome, Italy. 130 pp.
27. Hardy A, Dorne JLCM, Aiassa E, Alexander J, Bottex B, Chaudhry Q, Germini A, Nørrung B, Schlatter J, Verloo D, Robinson T, 2015. Editorial: Increasing robustness, transparency and openness of scientific assessments. EFSA Journal 2015;13(3):e13031. 3 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2015.e13031.
28. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, Savović J, Schulz KF, Weeks L, Sterne JAC, 2011. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011;343:d5928 doi:10.1136/bmj.d5928.
29. Higgins JPT, Green S (Editors), 2011. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.
30. Hooijmans CR, Rovers MM, De Vries RBM, Leenaars M, Ritskes-Hoitinga M, Langendam MW, 2014. SYRCLE's risk of bias tool for animal studies. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2014, 14:43. doi:10.1186/1471–2288-14–43.
31. IPCS (International Programme on Chemical Safety), 2009. A joint publication of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the World Health Organization. Principles and methods for the risk assessment of chemicals in food. Environmental Health Criteria 240. http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc240_front.pdf.
32. Klimisch HJ, Andreae M and Tillmann U, 1997. A Systematic Approach for Evaluating the Quality of Experimental Toxicological and Ecotoxicological Data. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 1997 Feb;25(1):1–5.
33. Meek ME, Boobis AR, Crofton KM, Heinemeyer G, Raaij MV and Vickers C, 2011. Risk assessment of combined exposure to multiple chemicals, A WHO/IPCS framework. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 60, Supp 2, S1–S14.
34. O'Connor AM, Lovei GL, Eales J, Frampton GK, Glanville J, Pullin AS, Sargeant J, 2012. Implementation of systematic reviews in EFSA scientific outputs workflow. Supporting Publications 2012:EN-367 [36 pp.]. Available online: www.efsa.europa.eu/publications.
35. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 2012. Series on Testing and Assessment: No 150: Guidance Document on Standardised Test Guidelines for Evaluating Chemicals for Endocrine Disruption. ENV/JM/MONO(2012)22, 524 pp.
36. OHAT/NTP (Office of Health Assessment and Translation/National Toxicology Program), 2015. Handbook for Conducting a Literature-Based Health Assessment Using OHAT Approach for Systematic Review and Evidence Integration http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/ohat/pubs/handbookjan2015_508.pdf.
37. OIE (Office International des Épizooties – World Organisation for Animal Health), 2012. Terrestrial Animal Health Code, 21st edn. OIE, Paris, France. http://www.oie.int/doc/ged/d12376.pdf.
38. Rooney AA, Boyles AL, Wolfe MS, Bucher JR, Thayer KA. 2014. Systematic review and evidence integration for literature-based environmental health science assessments. Environmental Health Perspectives, 2014 Jul;122(7):711–8. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1307972.
39. Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL, 2008. Modern Epidemiology. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Philadelphia, USA.
40. Sterne JAC, Higgins JPT, Reeves BC, on behalf of the development group for ACROBAT-NRSI, 2014. ACROBAT-NRSI: A Cochrane Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool for Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions. https://sites.google.com/site/riskofbiastool/.
41. US-EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency), 2007. Concepts, Methods and Data Sources for Cumulative Health Risk Assessment of Multiple Chemicals, Exposures and Effects, A Resource Document. EPA/600/R-06/013F.
42. Vermeire T, Aldenberg T, Buist H, Escher S, Mangelsdorf I, Pauné E, Rorije E, Kroese D, 2013. OSIRIS, a quest for proof of principle for integrated testing strategies of chemicals for four human health endpoints. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 67 (2013) 136–145.
43. WHO (World Health Organization), 2012. WHO Handbook for Guideline Development http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/75146/1/9789241548441_eng.pdf.
44. Chalmers et al. A Brief History of Research Synthesis. Evaluation & the Health Professions. A history of the development of methods to reduce statistical imprecision using quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis) and methods to reduce bias. Evaluation & the Health Professions March 2002 Vol. 25 no. 1 12–37 doi: 10.1177/0163278702025001003. Available from: http://ehp.sagepub.com/content/25/1/12.
45. EC (European Commission) Science 2.0 Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/research/consultations/science-2.0/background.pdf.
46. EC (European Commission), online. Horizon 2020 – The EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/.
47. ECDC (European Centre or Disease Prevention and Control), 2011. Operational guidance on rapid risk assessment methodology. Stockholm. ISBN 978–92–9193–306–8 doi:10.2900/57509. Available from: http://ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications/Publications/1108_TED_Risk_Assessment_Methodology_Guidance.pdf.
48. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2010. Report on data collection: future directions. EFSA Journal 2010; 8(5):1533, 35 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1533.
49. EFSA Scientific Committee, 2011. Statistical Significance and Biological Relevance. EFSA Journal 2011;9(9):2372. 17 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2372.
50. EFSA Scientific Committee, 2012. Scientific Opinion on risk assessment terminology. EFSA Journal 10(5): 2664, 43 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2664.
51. European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), 2010. Practical Guide 2: how to Report weight of Evidence. ECHA-10-B-05-EN (26pp).
52. Khangura S, Konnyu K, Cushman R, Grimshaw J, Moher D, 2012. Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach. Systematic Reviews 2012, 1:10 http://www.systematicreviewsjournal.com/content/1/1/10.
53. Lomas J, Culver T, McCutcheon C, McAuley L, Law S, 2005. Conceptualizing and combining evidence for health system guidance. Canadian Health Services Research Foundation. Available from: http://www.cfhi-fcass.ca/migrated/pdf/insightAction/evidence_e.pdf.
54. Oxman AD, Lavis JN, Lewin S and Fretheim A, 2009. SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 1: What is evidence-informed policymaking? Health Research Policy and Systems 2009, 7(Suppl 1):S1 doi:10.1186/1478–4505–7-S1-S1. Available from: http://www.health-policy-systems.com/content/7/S1/S1.
55. Rhomberg LR1, Goodman JE, Bailey LA, Prueitt RL, Beck NB, Bevan C, Honeycutt M, Kaminski NE, Paoli G, Pottenger LH, Scherer RW, Wise KC, Becker RA, 2013. A survey of frameworks for best practices in weight-of-evidence analyses. Critical Reviews in Toxicology 43(9):753–84. doi:10.3109/10408444.2013.832727.
56. WHO (World Health Organization), online. Evidence-informed policy making initiative. Available from: http://www.euro.who.int/en/data-and-evidence/evidence-informed-policy-making.
57. Chemical (risk) assessment.
58. Beronius A, Molander L, Rudén C and Hanberg A, 2014. 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., 34: 607–617. doi:10.1002/jat.2991 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jat.2991/abstract.
59. Bilotta GS, Milner AM, Boyd I, 2014. On the use of systematic reviews to inform environmental policies. Environmental Science & policy, 42: 67–77.
60. Johns Hopkins University/Bloomberg School of Public Health, online. Johns Hopkins University Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing. Available from: http://caat.jhsph.edu/.
61. CAMARADES (Collaborative Approach to Meta-Analysis and Review of Animal Data from Experimental Studies), online. Bringing Evidence to Translational Medicine. Available from: http://www.dcn.ed.ac.uk/camarades//.
62. EBTC (Evidence-Based Toxicology Collaboration). The Emergence of Systematic Review and Related Evidence-based Approaches in Toxicology. Available from: http://www.ebtox.com/.
63. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2013. International Framework Dealing with Human Risk Assessment of Combined Exposure to Multiple Chemicals. EFSA Journal 2013;11(7):3313. 69 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3313.
64. Meek ME, Boobis A, Cote I, Dellarco V, Fotakis G, Munn S, Seed J, Vickers C, 2013. New developments in the evolution and application of the WHO/IPCS framework on mode of action/species concordance analysis. Journal of Applied Toxicology, doi:10.1002/jat.2949.
65. NTP/OHAT (National Toxicology Programme/Office of Health and Translation), online. OHAT Systematic Review. Available from: http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/pubhealth/hat/noms/index-2.html.
66. Radboudumc – University Medical Center, online. SYRCLE (SYstematic Review Centre for Laboratory animal Experimentation) https://www.radboudumc.nl/Research/Organisationofresearch/Departments/cdl/SYRCLE/Pages/default.aspx.
67. The Policy from Science Project, online. Available from: http://policyfromscience.com/lrat/.
68. UCSF (University of California San Francisco), online. Clinical Practice & Policy: Navigation Guide. An Evidence-Based Medicine Methodology to Bridge the Gap between Clinical and Environmental Health Sciences. Available from: http://prhe.ucsf.edu/prhe/navigationguide.html.
69. US-EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency), 2013. Materials Submitted to the National Research Council Part I: Status of Implementation of Recommendations. Environmental Protection Agency: Integrated Risk Information System Program http://www.epa.gov/iris/pdfs/IRIS%20Program%20Materials%20to%20NRC_Part%201.pdf.
70. Environmental (risk) assessment.
71. CEE (The Collaboration for Environmental Evidence), online. Guidelines for Conducting CEE Reviews. Available from: http://www.environmentalevidence.org/information-for-authors.
72. JWEG (Joint Water Evidence Group), online. Rapid, resource-light approaches to systematic review of ecotoxicity data. “Production of Quick Scoping Reviews and Rapid Evidence Assessments – A How to Guide” 2014 59 pp. Available from: https://connect.innovateuk.org/documents/3058188/3918930/The%20Production%20of%20QSRs%20and%20REAs%20A%20How%20to%20guide.pdf?version=1.0.
73. US-EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency), 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/raf/publications/pdfs/ECOTXTBX.PDF.
74. Pesticide (risk) assessments.
75. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2011. Submission of scientific peer-reviewed open literature for the approval of pesticide active substances under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 (OJ L 309, 24.11.2009, p. 1–50). EFSA Journal 2011;9(2):2092. 49 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2092.
76. AGES (Austrian Agency for Health & Food Safety), 2013. Case studies for the application of the Guidance of EFSA on Submission of scientific peer-reviewed open literature for the approval of pesticide active substances under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, using substances for which dossiers are submitted under Regulation (EU) No 1141/2010. EFSA Supporting Publication 2013:EN-511. Available from: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/511e.pdf.
77. Nutrition (and healthcare).
78. FDA (Food and Drug Administration), 2009. Guidance for Industry: Evidence-Based Review System for the Scientific Evaluation of Health Claims http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm073332.htm.
79. GRADE working group, online. Available from: http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org/index.htm.
80. Guyatt, Gordon et al., 2011. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction—GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 64(4) 383–394. Available from: http://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895–4356(10)00330–6/fulltext.
81. Animal Health and Welfare and Microbial (risk) assessment.
82. CAC (Codex Alimentarius Commission), 1999. Principles and guidelines for the conduct of microbiological risk assessment. Available from: http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y1579e/y1579e05.htm.
83. EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW). Guidance on Risk Assessment for Animal Welfare. EFSA Journal 2012;10(1):2513. 30 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2513.
84. O'Connor AM and Sargeant JM, 2014. An introduction to systematic reviews in animal health, animal welfare, and food safety. Animal Health Research Reviews 15(1); 3–13. doi: 10.1017/S146625231400005X.
85. Pest (risk) assessments.
86. EFSA Panel on Plant Health (PLH). Guidance on a harmonised framework for pest risk assessment and the identification and evaluation of pest risk management options by EFSA. EFSA Journal 2010;8(2):1495. 68 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1495.
87. IPPC (International Plant Protection Convention), 2007. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures, ISPM 2. Framework for pest risk analysis. Available from: https://www.ippc.int/sites/default/files/documents//1323944382_ISPM_02_2007_En_2011–12–01_Refor.pdf.
88. GMO assessments.
89. GRACE (GMO Risk Assessment and Communication of Evidence), online. Available from: http://www.grace-fp7.eu/home.