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

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

doi:10.1016/j.envint.2015.11.002

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

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 MartinCatherine Meads, Monika Meyer-Baron, James Miller, Camilla Pease, Andrew Rooney, Alison Sapiets, Gavin Stewart, David Taylor

^*Corresponding author for this work

Chemicals & Environmental Effects

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

72 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	556-564
Number of pages	9
Journal	Environment International
Volume	92-93
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2015.11.002
Publication status	Published - 1 Aug 2016

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2015 The Authors

Keywords

Chemicals
Environment
Research synthesis
Risk assessment
Systematic review
Toxicology

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1016/j.envint.2015.11.002

Cite this

Whaley, P., Halsall, C., Ågerstrand, M., Aiassa, E., Benford, D., Bilotta, G., Coggon, D., Collins, C., Dempsey, C., Duarte-Davidson, R., FitzGerald, R., Galay-Burgos, M., Gee, D., Hoffmann, S., Lam, J., Lasserson, T., Levy, L., Lipworth, S., Ross, S. M., ... Taylor, D. (2016). Implementing systematic review techniques in chemical risk assessment: Challenges, opportunities and recommendations. Environment International, 92-93, 556-564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2015.11.002

@article{762dd72675ef4e21a534a638e03d9fae,

title = "Implementing systematic review techniques in chemical risk assessment: Challenges, opportunities and recommendations",

abstract = "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.",

keywords = "Chemicals, Environment, Research synthesis, Risk assessment, Systematic review, Toxicology",

author = "Paul Whaley and Crispin Halsall and Marlene {\AA}gerstrand and Elisa Aiassa and Diane Benford and Gary Bilotta and David Coggon and Chris Collins and Ciara Dempsey and Raquel Duarte-Davidson and Rex FitzGerald and Malyka Galay-Burgos and David Gee and Sebastian Hoffmann and Juleen Lam and Toby Lasserson and Len Levy and Steven Lipworth and Ross, {Sarah Mackenzie} and Olwenn Martin and Catherine Meads and Monika Meyer-Baron and James Miller and Camilla Pease and Andrew Rooney and Alison Sapiets and Gavin Stewart and David Taylor",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2015 The Authors",

year = "2016",

month = aug,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1016/j.envint.2015.11.002",

language = "English",

volume = "92-93",

pages = "556--564",

journal = "Environment International",

issn = "0160-4120",

publisher = "Elsevier Ltd.",

}

Whaley, P, Halsall, C, Ågerstrand, M, Aiassa, E, Benford, D, Bilotta, G, Coggon, D, Collins, C, Dempsey, C, Duarte-Davidson, R, FitzGerald, R, Galay-Burgos, M, Gee, D, Hoffmann, S, Lam, J, Lasserson, T, Levy, L, Lipworth, S, Ross, SM, Martin, O, Meads, C, Meyer-Baron, M, Miller, J, Pease, C, Rooney, A, Sapiets, A, Stewart, G & Taylor, D 2016, 'Implementing systematic review techniques in chemical risk assessment: Challenges, opportunities and recommendations', Environment International, vol. 92-93, pp. 556-564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2015.11.002

TY - JOUR

T1 - Implementing systematic review techniques in chemical risk assessment

T2 - Challenges, opportunities and recommendations

AU - Whaley, Paul

AU - Halsall, Crispin

AU - Ågerstrand, Marlene

AU - Aiassa, Elisa

AU - Benford, Diane

AU - Bilotta, Gary

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

AU - Levy, Len

AU - Lipworth, Steven

AU - Ross, Sarah Mackenzie

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

PY - 2016/8/1

Y1 - 2016/8/1

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 - Chemicals

KW - Environment

KW - Research synthesis

KW - Risk assessment

KW - Systematic review

KW - Toxicology

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84950132651&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.envint.2015.11.002

DO - 10.1016/j.envint.2015.11.002

M3 - Article

C2 - 26687863

AN - SCOPUS:84950132651

SN - 0160-4120

VL - 92-93

SP - 556

EP - 564

JO - Environment International

JF - Environment International

ER -

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

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Keywords

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this