Literature DB >> 27039952

Guidance on assessing the methodological and reporting quality of toxicologically relevant studies: A scoping review.

Gbeminiyi O Samuel1, Sebastian Hoffmann2, Robert A Wright3, Manoj Mathew Lalu4, Grace Patlewicz5, Richard A Becker6, George L DeGeorge7, Dean Fergusson8, Thomas Hartung9, R Jeffrey Lewis10, Martin L Stephens11.   

Abstract

Assessments of methodological and reporting quality are critical to adequately judging the credibility of a study's conclusions and to gauging its potential reproducibility. To aid those seeking to assess the methodological or reporting quality of studies relevant to toxicology, we conducted a scoping review of the available guidance with respect to four types of studies: in vivo and in vitro, (quantitative) structure-activity relationships ([Q]SARs), physico-chemical, and human observational studies. Our aims were to identify the available guidance in this diverse literature, briefly summarize each document, and distill the common elements of these documents for each study type. In general, we found considerable guidance for in vivo and human studies, but only one paper addressed in vitro studies exclusively. The guidance for (Q)SAR studies and physico-chemical studies was scant but authoritative. There was substantial overlap across guidance documents in the proposed criteria for both methodological and reporting quality. Some guidance documents address toxicology research directly, whereas others address preclinical research generally or clinical research and therefore may not be fully applicable to the toxicology context without some translation. Another challenge is the degree to which assessments of methodological quality in toxicology should focus on risk of bias - as in clinical medicine and healthcare - or be broadened to include other quality measures, such as confirming the identity of test substances prior to exposure. Our review is intended primarily for those in toxicology and risk assessment seeking an entry point into the extensive and diverse literature on methodological and reporting quality applicable to their work.
Copyright © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Methodological quality; Reporting quality; Risk of bias; Scoping review; Toxicity studies

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27039952     DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2016.03.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Int        ISSN: 0160-4120            Impact factor:   9.621


  15 in total

Review 1.  Perspectives on In Vitro to In Vivo Extrapolations.

Authors:  Thomas Hartung
Journal:  Appl In Vitro Toxicol       Date:  2018-12-08

2.  Quality assessment tools used in systematic reviews of in vitro studies: A systematic review.

Authors:  Linh Tran; Dao Ngoc Hien Tam; Abdelrahman Elshafay; Thao Dang; Kenji Hirayama; Nguyen Tien Huy
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2021-05-08       Impact factor: 4.615

3.  Internationalization of read-across as a validated new approach method (NAM) for regulatory toxicology.

Authors:  Costanza Rovida; Tara Barton-Maclaren; Emilio Benfenati; Francesca Caloni; P. Charukeshi Chandrasekera; Christophe Chesné; Mark T D Cronin; Joop De Knecht; Daniel R Dietrich; Sylvia E Escher; Suzanne Fitzpatrick; Brenna Flannery; Matthias Herzler; Susanne Hougaard Bennekou; Bruno Hubesch; Hennicke Kamp; Jaffar Kisitu; Nicole Kleinstreuer; Simona Kovarich; Marcel Leist; Alexandra Maertens; Kerry Nugent; Giorgia Pallocca; Manuel Pastor; Grace Patlewicz; Manuela Pavan; Octavio Presgrave; Lena Smirnova; Michael Schwarz; Takashi Yamada; Thomas Hartung
Journal:  ALTEX       Date:  2020-04-30       Impact factor: 6.250

Review 4.  A primer on systematic reviews in toxicology.

Authors:  Sebastian Hoffmann; Rob B M de Vries; Martin L Stephens; Nancy B Beck; Hubert A A M Dirven; John R Fowle; Julie E Goodman; Thomas Hartung; Ian Kimber; Manoj M Lalu; Kristina Thayer; Paul Whaley; Daniele Wikoff; Katya Tsaioun
Journal:  Arch Toxicol       Date:  2017-05-13       Impact factor: 5.153

5.  Adaptation of the Systematic Review Framework to the Assessment of Toxicological Test Methods: Challenges and Lessons Learned with the Zebrafish Embryotoxicity Test.

Authors:  Martin L Stephens; Sevcan Gül Akgün-Ölmez; Sebastian Hoffmann; Rob de Vries; Burkhard Flick; Thomas Hartung; Manoj Lalu; Alexandra Maertens; Hilda Witters; Robert Wright; Katya Tsaioun
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2018-06-13       Impact factor: 4.849

6.  Reliability and relevance evaluations of REACH data.

Authors:  Ellen Ingre-Khans; Marlene Ågerstrand; Anna Beronius; Christina Rudén
Journal:  Toxicol Res (Camb)       Date:  2018-10-15       Impact factor: 3.524

7.  Biophysical effects, safety and efficacy of raspberry leaf use in pregnancy: a systematic integrative review.

Authors:  Rebekah Bowman; Jan Taylor; Sally Muggleton; Deborah Davis
Journal:  BMC Complement Med Ther       Date:  2021-02-09

8.  The Emergence of Systematic Review in Toxicology.

Authors:  Martin L Stephens; Kellyn Betts; Nancy B Beck; Vincent Cogliano; Kay Dickersin; Suzanne Fitzpatrick; James Freeman; George Gray; Thomas Hartung; Jennifer McPartland; Andrew A Rooney; Roberta W Scherer; Didier Verloo; Sebastian Hoffmann
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2016-05-05       Impact factor: 4.849

9.  The Size-dependent Cytotoxicity of Amorphous Silica Nanoparticles: A Systematic Review of in vitro Studies.

Authors:  Xuemeng Dong; Zehao Wu; Xiuping Li; Liyan Xiao; Man Yang; Yang Li; Junchao Duan; Zhiwei Sun
Journal:  Int J Nanomedicine       Date:  2020-11-18

Review 10.  Enhancing the Therapeutic Potential of Mesenchymal Stem Cells with Light-Emitting Diode: Implications and Molecular Mechanisms.

Authors:  Barbara Sampaio Dias Martins Mansano; Vitor Pocani da Rocha; Ednei Luiz Antonio; Daniele Fernanda Peron; Rafael do Nascimento de Lima; Paulo Jose Ferreira Tucci; Andrey Jorge Serra
Journal:  Oxid Med Cell Longev       Date:  2021-02-03       Impact factor: 6.543

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.