Literature DB >> 24481642

Facilitating the use of non-standard in vivo studies in health risk assessment of chemicals: a proposal to improve evaluation criteria and reporting.

Anna Beronius1, Linda Molander, Christina Rudén, Annika Hanberg.   

Abstract

To improve data availability in health risk assessment of chemicals and fill information gaps there is a need to facilitate the use of non-standard toxicity studies, i.e. studies not conducted according to any standardized toxicity test guidelines. The purpose of this work was to propose criteria and guidance for the evaluation of reliability and relevance of non-standard in vivo studies, which could be used to facilitate systematic and transparent evaluation of such studies for health risk assessment. Another aim was to propose user friendly guidance for reporting of non-standard studies intended to promote an improvement in reporting of studies that could be of use in risk assessment. Requirements and recommendations for the design and execution of in vivo toxicity studies were identified from The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) test guidelines, and served as basis for the data evaluation criteria and reporting guidelines. Feedback was also collected from experts within the field of toxicity testing and risk assessment and used to construct a two-tiered framework for study evaluation, as well as refine the reporting guidelines. The proposed framework emphasizes the importance of study relevance and an important aspect is to not completely dismiss studies from health risk assessment based on very strict criteria for reliability. The suggested reporting guidelines provide researchers with a tool to fulfill reporting requirements as stated by regulatory agencies. Together, these resources provide an approach to include all relevant data that may fill information gaps and reduce scientific uncertainty in health risk assessment conclusions, and subsequently also in chemical policy decisions.
Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Health risk assessment; OECD; chemicals; non-standard studies; relevance; reliability; reporting guidelines; study evaluation

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24481642     DOI: 10.1002/jat.2991

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Appl Toxicol        ISSN: 0260-437X            Impact factor:   3.446


  18 in total

1.  How should the completeness and quality of curated nanomaterial data be evaluated?

Authors:  Richard L Marchese Robinson; Iseult Lynch; Willie Peijnenburg; John Rumble; Fred Klaessig; Clarissa Marquardt; Hubert Rauscher; Tomasz Puzyn; Ronit Purian; Christoffer Åberg; Sandra Karcher; Hanne Vriens; Peter Hoet; Mark D Hoover; Christine Ogilvie Hendren; Stacey L Harper
Journal:  Nanoscale       Date:  2016-05-04       Impact factor: 7.790

2.  The Use and Misuse of Historical Controls in Regulatory Toxicology: Lessons from the CLARITY-BPA Study.

Authors:  Laura N Vandenberg; Gail S Prins; Heather B Patisaul; R Thomas Zoeller
Journal:  Endocrinology       Date:  2020-05-01       Impact factor: 4.736

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

Authors:  Glinda S Cooper; Ruth M Lunn; Marlene Ågerstrand; Barbara S Glenn; Andrew D Kraft; April M Luke; Jennifer M Ratcliffe
Journal:  Environ Int       Date:  2016-05-05       Impact factor: 9.621

4.  How credible are the study results? Evaluating and applying internal validity tools to literature-based assessments of environmental health hazards.

Authors:  Andrew A Rooney; Glinda S Cooper; Gloria D Jahnke; Juleen Lam; Rebecca L Morgan; Abee L Boyles; Jennifer M Ratcliffe; Andrew D Kraft; Holger J Schünemann; Pamela Schwingl; Teneille D Walker; Kristina A Thayer; Ruth M Lunn
Journal:  Environ Int       Date:  2016-02-06       Impact factor: 9.621

Review 5.  Using systematic reviews for hazard and risk assessment of endocrine disrupting chemicals.

Authors:  Anna Beronius; Laura N Vandenberg
Journal:  Rev Endocr Metab Disord       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 6.514

6.  Implementing systematic review techniques in chemical risk assessment: Challenges, opportunities and recommendations.

Authors:  Paul Whaley; Crispin Halsall; Marlene Ågerstrand; Elisa Aiassa; Diane Benford; Gary Bilotta; David Coggon; Chris Collins; Ciara Dempsey; Raquel Duarte-Davidson; Rex FitzGerald; Malyka Galay-Burgos; David Gee; Sebastian Hoffmann; Juleen Lam; Toby Lasserson; Len Levy; Steven Lipworth; Sarah Mackenzie Ross; Olwenn Martin; Catherine Meads; Monika Meyer-Baron; James Miller; Camilla Pease; Andrew Rooney; Alison Sapiets; Gavin Stewart; David Taylor
Journal:  Environ Int       Date:  2015-12-11       Impact factor: 9.621

Review 7.  Update on the Health Effects of Bisphenol A: Overwhelming Evidence of Harm.

Authors:  Frederick S Vom Saal; Laura N Vandenberg
Journal:  Endocrinology       Date:  2021-03-01       Impact factor: 4.736

8.  Assessing dose-response relationships for endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs): a focus on non-monotonicity.

Authors:  R Thomas Zoeller; Laura N Vandenberg
Journal:  Environ Health       Date:  2015-05-15       Impact factor: 5.984

9.  A path forward in the debate over health impacts of endocrine disrupting chemicals.

Authors:  R Thomas Zoeller; Åke Bergman; Georg Becher; Poul Bjerregaard; Riana Bornman; Ingvar Brandt; Taisen Iguchi; Susan Jobling; Karen A Kidd; Andreas Kortenkamp; Niels E Skakkebaek; Jorma Toppari; Laura N Vandenberg
Journal:  Environ Health       Date:  2014-12-22       Impact factor: 5.984

Review 10.  The Navigation Guide - evidence-based medicine meets environmental health: systematic review of nonhuman evidence for PFOA effects on fetal growth.

Authors:  Erica Koustas; Juleen Lam; Patrice Sutton; Paula I Johnson; Dylan S Atchley; Saunak Sen; Karen A Robinson; Daniel A Axelrad; Tracey J Woodruff
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2014-06-25       Impact factor: 9.031

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.