Literature DB >> 32196925

Systematic Review and Weight of Evidence Are Integral to Ecological and Human Health Assessments: They Need an Integrated Framework.

Glenn Suter1, Jennifer Nichols2, Emma Lavoie3, Susan Cormier4.   

Abstract

Scientific assessments synthesize the various results of scientific research for policy and decision making. Synthesizing evidence in environmental assessments can involve either or both of 2 systems: systematic review (SR) and weight of evidence (WoE). Systematic review was developed to systematically assemble results of clinical trials to be combined by meta-analysis. Weight-of-evidence approaches have evolved from jurisprudence to make inferences from diverse bodies of evidence in various fields. Our objectives are to describe the similarities and differences between SR and WoE and to suggest how their best practices can be combined into a general framework that is applicable to human health and ecological assessments. Integrating SR and WoE is based on the recognition that 2 processes are required, assembling evidence and making an inference. Systematic review is characterized by methodical literature searching, screening, and data extraction, originally for meta-analysis but now for various inferential methods. Weight of evidence is characterized by systematically relating heterogeneous evidence to considerations appropriate to the inference and making the inference by weighing the evidence. Systematic review enables the unbiased assembly of evidence from literature, but methods for assembling other information must be considered as well. If only 1 type of quantitative study estimates the assessment endpoint, meta-analysis is appropriate for inference. Otherwise, the heterogeneous evidence must be weighed. A framework is presented that integrates best practices into a methodical assembly and weighing of evidence. A glossary of terms for the combined practice and a history of the origins of SR and WoE are provided in Supplemental Data. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2020;16:718-728. Published 2020. This article is a US Government work and is in the public domain in the USA. Published 2020. This article is a US Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Evidence integration; Hill's criteria; Meta-analysis; Systematic review; Weight of evidence

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32196925      PMCID: PMC7551547          DOI: 10.1002/ieam.4271

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Integr Environ Assess Manag        ISSN: 1551-3777            Impact factor:   3.084


  20 in total

Review 1.  Evaluation of the causal framework used for setting national ambient air quality standards.

Authors:  Julie E Goodman; Robyn L Prueitt; Sonja N Sax; Lisa A Bailey; Lorenz R Rhomberg
Journal:  Crit Rev Toxicol       Date:  2013-10-03       Impact factor: 5.635

Review 2.  A survey of frameworks for best practices in weight-of-evidence analyses.

Authors:  Lorenz R Rhomberg; Julie E Goodman; Lisa A Bailey; Robyn L Prueitt; Nancy B Beck; Christopher Bevan; Michael Honeycutt; Norbert E Kaminski; Greg Paoli; Lynn H Pottenger; Roberta W Scherer; Kimberly C Wise; Richard A Becker
Journal:  Crit Rev Toxicol       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 5.635

Review 3.  Weight-of-evidence evaluation in environmental assessment: review of qualitative and quantitative approaches.

Authors:  Igor Linkov; Drew Loney; Susan Cormier; F Kyle Satterstrom; Todd Bridges
Journal:  Sci Total Environ       Date:  2009-07-19       Impact factor: 7.963

4.  Four principles to make evidence synthesis more useful for policy.

Authors:  Christl A Donnelly; Ian Boyd; Philip Campbell; Claire Craig; Patrick Vallance; Mark Walport; Christopher J M Whitty; Emma Woods; Chris Wormald
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 49.962

5.  Modernizing the Bradford Hill criteria for assessing causal relationships in observational data.

Authors:  Louis Anthony Cox
Journal:  Crit Rev Toxicol       Date:  2018-11-15       Impact factor: 5.635

6.  Hypothesis-Based Weight of Evidence: An Approach to Assessing Causation and its Application to Regulatory Toxicology.

Authors:  Lorenz Rhomberg
Journal:  Risk Anal       Date:  2014-04-11       Impact factor: 4.000

7.  The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses.

Authors:  John P A Ioannidis
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 4.911

8.  Rules of inference in epidemiology.

Authors:  M Susser
Journal:  Regul Toxicol Pharmacol       Date:  1986-06       Impact factor: 3.271

9.  Guidance on the use of the weight of evidence approach in scientific assessments.

Authors:  Anthony Hardy; Diane Benford; Thorhallur Halldorsson; Michael John Jeger; Helle Katrine Knutsen; Simon More; Hanspeter Naegeli; Hubert Noteborn; Colin Ockleford; Antonia Ricci; Guido Rychen; Josef R Schlatter; Vittorio Silano; Roland Solecki; Dominique Turck; Emilio Benfenati; Qasim Mohammad Chaudhry; Peter Craig; Geoff Frampton; Matthias Greiner; Andrew Hart; Christer Hogstrand; Claude Lambre; Robert Luttik; David Makowski; Alfonso Siani; Helene Wahlstroem; Jaime Aguilera; Jean-Lou Dorne; Antonio Fernandez Dumont; Michaela Hempen; Silvia Valtueña Martínez; Laura Martino; Camilla Smeraldi; Andrea Terron; Nikolaos Georgiadis; Maged Younes
Journal:  EFSA J       Date:  2017-08-03

10.  A weight-of-evidence approach for deriving a level of concern for atrazine that is protective of aquatic plant communities.

Authors:  Dwayne Rj Moore; Colleen D Greer; Gillian Manning; Katie Wooding; Kerrie J Beckett; Richard A Brain; Gary Marshall
Journal:  Integr Environ Assess Manag       Date:  2017-01-18       Impact factor: 2.992

View more
  3 in total

Review 1.  Moving persistence assessments into the 21st century: A role for weight-of-evidence and overall persistence.

Authors:  Aaron D Redman; Jens Bietz; John W Davis; Delina Lyon; Erin Maloney; Amelie Ott; Jens C Otte; Frédéric Palais; John R Parsons; Neil Wang
Journal:  Integr Environ Assess Manag       Date:  2021-12-20       Impact factor: 3.084

2.  The Future of the Weight-of-Evidence Approach: A Response to Suter's Comments.

Authors:  Andrew C Johnson; John P Sumpter; Michael H Depledge
Journal:  Environ Toxicol Chem       Date:  2021-11       Impact factor: 4.218

3.  Investigating endocrine-disrupting properties of chemicals in fish and amphibians: Opportunities to apply the 3Rs.

Authors:  Natalie Burden; Michelle R Embry; Thomas H Hutchinson; Scott G Lynn; Samuel K Maynard; Constance A Mitchell; Francesca Pellizzato; Fiona Sewell; Karen L Thorpe; Lennart Weltje; James R Wheeler
Journal:  Integr Environ Assess Manag       Date:  2021-08-18       Impact factor: 3.084

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.