Study sensitivity: Evaluating the ability to detect effects in systematic reviews of chemical exposures

Environment International

Volumn 92-93, Issue , 2016, Pages 605-610

  Cooper, Glinda S ^a   Lunn, Ruth M ^b   Ågerstrand, Marlene ^c   Glenn, Barbara S ^a   Kraft, Andrew D ^a   Luke, April M ^a   Ratcliffe, Jennifer M ^d  

^a U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY   (United States)

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

^c STOCKHOLM UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^d INTEGRATED LABORATORY SYSTEMS   (United States)

Author keywords

Bias; Chemical hazard assessment; Environmental health; Study sensitivity; Systematic review; Validity

Indexed keywords

BIOHAZARDS; CHEMICAL HAZARDS; HEALTH RISKS; MEDICINE; RISK ASSESSMENT; SYSTEMATIC ERRORS;

BIAS; ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH; HAZARD ASSESSMENT; STUDY SENSITIVITY; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; VALIDITY;

HEALTH HAZARDS;

ENDOCRINE DISRUPTOR;

CHEMICAL SUBSTANCE; HAZARD ASSESSMENT; HEALTH RISK; RISK ASSESSMENT; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS;

ARTICLE; CHEMICAL ENVIRONMENT; CHEMICAL HAZARD ASSESSMENT; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONCENTRATION (PARAMETERS); ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH; EXTERNAL VALIDITY; FOLLOW UP; HAZARD ASSESSMENT; HEALTH HAZARD; HUMAN; IN VIVO STUDY; INTERNAL VALIDITY; MEASUREMENT ACCURACY; MEASUREMENT PRECISION; NONHUMAN; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RELIABILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; ANIMAL; LITERATURE; POLLUTANT; PUBLISHING; STATISTICAL BIAS; TOXICITY;

ANIMALIA;

ANIMALS; BIAS; ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTANTS; HUMANS; PUBLICATION BIAS; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 85027932226     PISSN: 01604120     EISSN: 18736750     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2016.03.017     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Beronius, A., Molander, M., 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. 34 (2014), 607–617.
2. Fu, R., Gartlehner, G., Grant, M., Shamliyan, T., Sedrakyan, A., Wilt, T.J., Griffith, L., Oremus, M., Raina, P., Ismaila, A., Santaguida, P., Lau, J., Trikalinos, T.A., Conducting quantitative synthesis when comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the Effective Health Care Program. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 64 (2011), 1187–1197.
3. Hemminki, K., Mutanen, P., Salonienmi, I., Niemi, M.L., Vainio, H., Spontaneous abortions in hospital staff engaged in sterilizing instruments with chemical agents. Br. Med. J. 28 (1982), 1461–1463.
4. Hemminki, K., Kyyronen, P., Lindbohm, M.L., Spontaneous abortions and malformations in the offspring of nurses exposed to anesthetic gases, cytostatic drugs, and other potential hazards in hospitals based on registered information of outcome. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 39 (1985), 141–147.
5. Higgins, J.P.T., Green, S., (eds.) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0. Chapter 8: Assessing Risk of Bias in Included Studies, 2011, The Cochrane Collaboration [updated March 2011]. available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.
6. 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, 10.1186/1471-2288-14-43.
7. IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer), Arenic. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Arsenic, Metals, Fibres and Dusts, vol. 100C, 2012, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France, 39–325.
8. IOM (Institute of Medicine), Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews. 2011, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
9. Marsh, G.M., Youk, A.O., Stone, R.A., Buchanich, J.M., Gula, M.J., Smith, T.J., Quinn, M.M., Historical cohort study of US man-made vitreous fiber production workers: I. 1992 fiberglass cohort follow-up: initial findings. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 43:9 (2001), 741–756.
10. Molander, L., Ågerstrand, M., Beronius, A., Hanberg, A., Rudén, C., Science in Risk Assessment and Policy (SciRAP): an online resource for evaluating and reporting in vivo (eco) toxicity studies. Hum. Ecol. Risk. Assess. 21 (2014), 753–762.
11. NRC (National Research Council), Assessing the Human Health Risks of Trichloroethylene: Key Scientific Issues, National Resource Council. 2006, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. 379 pp.
12. NRC (National Research Council), Review of the Formaldehyde Assessment in the National Toxicology Program 12th Report on Carcinogens. National Research Council, 2014, National Academies Press, Washington, DC 232 pp.
13. NRC (National Research Council), Review of Styrene Assessment in the National Toxicology Program 12th Report on Carcinogens. National Research Council, 2014, National Academies Press, Washington, DC 178 pp.
14. NTP (National Toxicology Program), Report on Carcinogens Monograph on Trichloroethyelne – January 2015. 2015, Office of the Report on Carcinogens, RTP, NC Available: http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/37899.
15. NTP (National Toxicology Program), Handbook for Conducting a Literature-Based Health Assessment Using OHAT Approach for Systematic Review and Evidence Integration - January 9 2015. 2015, Office of Health Assessment and Translation, RTP, NC Available: http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/38673.
16. Parodi, S., Gennaro, V., Ceppi, M., Cocco, P., Comparison bias and dilution effect in occupational cohort studies. Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health 13 (2007), 143–152.
17. Rice, D., Barone, S. Jr., Critical periods of vulnerability for the developing nervous system: evidence from humans and animal models. Environ. Health Perspect. 108:Suppl. 3 (2000), 511–533.
18. 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. 122 (2014), 711–718.
19. Semple, B.D., Blomgren, K., Gimlin, K., Ferriero, D.M., Noble-Haeusslein, L.J., Brain development in rodents and humans: identifying benchmarks of maturation and vulnerability to injury across species. Prog. Neurobiol. 106-107 (2013), 1–16, 10.1016/j.pneurobio.2013.04.001 Epub 2013 Apr 11.
20. Sterne, J., Higgins, J., Reeves, B., On Behalf of the Development Group for ROBINS-I: A Tool for Assessing Risk Of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions, Version 7. March, 2016 Available from http://www.riskofbias.info (last accessed March 11, 2016).
21. United Nations Environment Programme - World Health Organization (UNEP-WHO), Bergman, A., Heindel, J.J., Jobling, S., Kidd, K.A., Zoeller, R.T., (eds.) State of the science of endocrine disrupting chemicals - 2012, 2013.
22. Viswanathan, M., Ansari, M.T., Berkman, N.D., Chang, S., Hartling, L., McPheeters, M., Lina Santaguida, P., Shamliyan, T., Singh, K., Tsertsvadze, A., Treadwell, J.R., Chapter 9. Assessing the risk of bias of individual studies in systematic reviews of health care interventions. Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. AHRQ Publication No. 10(14)-EHC063-EF, 2014, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD January. Chapters available at www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov.
23. Whaley, P., Halsall, C., Ågerstrand, M., Benford, D., Aiassa, E., Bilotta, G., Boyd, I., Coggon, D., Collins, C., Dempsey, C., Duarte-Davidson, R., Fitzgerald, R., Galay Burgos, M., Gee, D., Hart, A., Hoffmann, S., Lam, J., Lassersson, T., Levy, L., Lipworth, S., Mackenzie Ross, S., Martin, O., Meads, C., Meyer-Baron, M., Miller, J., Mongelard, P., Pease, P., Rooney, A., Sapiets, A., Stewart, G., Taylor, D., Verloo, D., Implementing systematic review techniques in chemical risk assessments: challenges, opportunities and recommendations. Environ. Int. 92-93 (2016), 605–610.
24. 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. 122 (2014), 1007–1014.