Rights statement: This is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Environment International. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Environment International, 92-93, 2016 DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2015.11.002 © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Accepted author manuscript, 244 KB, PDF document
Available under license: CC BY-NC-ND
Rights statement: © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Final published version, 1.05 MB, PDF document
Available under license: CC BY: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Final published version
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Implementing systematic review techniques in chemical risk assessment
T2 - challenges, opportunities and recommendations
AU - Whaley, Paul
AU - Halsall, Crispin James
AU - Ågerstrand, Marlene
AU - Aiassa, Elisa
AU - Benford, Diane
AU - Bilotta, Gary S.
AU - Coggon, David
AU - Collins, Chris
AU - Dempsey, Ciara
AU - Duarte-Davidson, Raquel
AU - Fitzgerald, Rex
AU - Galay-Burgos, Malyka
AU - Gee, David
AU - Hoffmann, Sebastian
AU - Lam, Juleen
AU - Lasserson, Toby J.
AU - Levy, Len
AU - Lipworth, Steven
AU - Mackenzie Ross, Sarah
AU - Martin, Olwenn
AU - Meads, Catherine
AU - Meyer-Baron, Monika
AU - Miller, James
AU - Pease, Camilla
AU - Rooney, Andrew
AU - Sapiets, Alison
AU - Stewart, Gavin
AU - Taylor, David
N1 - © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
PY - 2016/7
Y1 - 2016/7
N2 - Systematic review (SR) is a rigorous, protocol-driven approach designed to minimise error and bias when summarising the body of research evidence relevant to a specific scientific question. Taking as a comparator the use of SR in synthesising research in healthcare, we argue that SR methods could also pave the way for a “step change” in the transparency, objectivity and communication of chemical risk assessments (CRA) in Europe and elsewhere. We suggest that current controversies around the safety of certain chemicals are partly due to limitations in current CRA procedures which have contributed to ambiguity about the health risks posed by these substances. We present an overview of how SR methods can be applied to the assessment of risks from chemicals, and indicate how challenges in adapting SR methods from healthcare research to the CRA context might be overcome. Regarding the latter, we report the outcomes from a workshop exploring how to increase uptake of SR methods, attended by experts representing a wide range of fields related to chemical toxicology, risk analysis and SR. Priorities which were identified include: the conduct of CRA-focused prototype SRs; the development of a recognised standard of reporting and conduct for SRs in toxicology and CRA; and establishing a network to facilitate research, communication and training in SR methods. We see this paper as a milestone in the creation of a research climate that fosters communication between experts in CRA and SR and facilitates wider uptake of SR methods into CRA.
AB - Systematic review (SR) is a rigorous, protocol-driven approach designed to minimise error and bias when summarising the body of research evidence relevant to a specific scientific question. Taking as a comparator the use of SR in synthesising research in healthcare, we argue that SR methods could also pave the way for a “step change” in the transparency, objectivity and communication of chemical risk assessments (CRA) in Europe and elsewhere. We suggest that current controversies around the safety of certain chemicals are partly due to limitations in current CRA procedures which have contributed to ambiguity about the health risks posed by these substances. We present an overview of how SR methods can be applied to the assessment of risks from chemicals, and indicate how challenges in adapting SR methods from healthcare research to the CRA context might be overcome. Regarding the latter, we report the outcomes from a workshop exploring how to increase uptake of SR methods, attended by experts representing a wide range of fields related to chemical toxicology, risk analysis and SR. Priorities which were identified include: the conduct of CRA-focused prototype SRs; the development of a recognised standard of reporting and conduct for SRs in toxicology and CRA; and establishing a network to facilitate research, communication and training in SR methods. We see this paper as a milestone in the creation of a research climate that fosters communication between experts in CRA and SR and facilitates wider uptake of SR methods into CRA.
KW - Risk assessment
KW - Research synthesis
KW - Environment
KW - Chemicals
KW - Systematic review
KW - Toxicology
U2 - 10.1016/j.envint.2015.11.002
DO - 10.1016/j.envint.2015.11.002
M3 - Journal article
VL - 92-93
SP - 556
EP - 564
JO - Environment International
JF - Environment International
SN - 0160-4120
ER -