Science in Risk Assessment and Policy (SciRAP): An Online Resource for Evaluating and Reporting<i>In Vivo</i>(Eco)Toxicity Studies

Molander, Linda; Ågerstrand, Marlene; Beronius, Anna; Hanberg, Annika; Rudén, Christina

doi:10.1080/10807039.2014.928104

Cited by 39 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results of the current investigation demonstrate the importance of developing methods to facilitate the use of non‐standard academic research studies in regulatory risk assessment to ensure the consideration of potentially sensitive and relevant effects. This was one of the reasons behind the development of the SciRAP study evaluation method (Beronius et al ., ; Molander et al ., ) used in the present investigation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Science in Risk Assessment and Policy (SciRAP) is an initiative to facilitate the use of all relevant data, including academic research data, in the risk assessment of chemicals (Molander et al ., ; http://scirap.org/). Within SciRAP, a method has been developed to enable systematic and transparent evaluation of the adequacy of individual in vivo toxicity studies for health risk assessment (Beronius et al ., ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Combining web-based tools for transparent evaluation of data for risk assessment: developmental effects of bisphenol A on the mammary gland as a case study

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Different tools have been developed that facilitate systematic and transparent evaluation and handling of toxicity data in the risk assessment process. The present paper sets out to explore the combined use of two web-based tools for study evaluation and identification of reliable data relevant to health risk assessment. For this purpose, a case study was performed using in vivo toxicity studies investigating low-dose effects of bisphenol A on mammary gland development. The reliability of the mammary gland studies was evaluated using the Science in Risk Assessment and Policy (SciRAP) criteria for toxicity studies. The Health Assessment Workspace Collaborative (HAWC) was used for characterizing and visualizing the mammary gland data in terms of type of effects investigated and reported, and the distribution of these effects within the dose interval. It was then investigated whether there was any relationship between study reliability and the type of effects reported and/or their distribution in the dose interval. The combination of the SciRAP and HAWC tools allowed for transparent evaluation and visualization of the studies investigating developmental effects of BPA on the mammary gland. The use of these tools showed that there were no apparent differences in the type of effects and their distribution in the dose interval between the five studies assessed as most reliable and the whole data set. Combining the SciRAP and HAWC tools was found to be a useful approach for evaluating in vivo toxicity studies and identifying reliable and sensitive information relevant to regulatory risk assessment of chemicals. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Combining web-based tools for transparent evaluation of data for risk assessment: developmental effects of bisphenol A on the mammary gland as a case study

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some examples show the explicit incorporation of the consideration into the assessment tool, some show the possibility of inclusion (e.g., into an “other sources of bias” category), others are addressed in applicability (discussed below), and others are not addressed. The three tools for animal toxicology studies are from NTP OHAT, Science in Risk Assessment and Policy (SciRAP) (Molander et al, 2014; Beronius et al, 2014), and the Systematic Review Centre for Laboratory Animal Experimentation (SYRCLE) (Hooijmans et al, 2014). As with the epidemiology elements, there are a variety of approaches to address these elements.…”

Section: Approaches To Evaluating Study Sensitivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Cooper

Lunn

Ågerstrand

et al. 2016

Environment International

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A critical step in systematic reviews of potential health hazards is the structured evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the included studies; risk of bias is a term often used to represent this process, specifically with respect to the evaluation of systematic errors that can lead to inaccurate (biased) results (i.e. focusing on internal validity). Systematic review methods developed in the clinical medicine arena have been adapted for use in evaluating environmental health hazards; this expansion raises questions about the scope of risk of bias tools and the extent to which they capture the elements that can affect the interpretation of results from environmental and occupational epidemiology studies and in vivo animal toxicology studies, (the studies typically available for assessment of risk of chemicals). One such element, described here as “sensitivity”, is a measure of the ability of a study to detect a true effect or hazard. This concept is similar to the concept of the sensitivity of an assay; an insensitive study may fail to show a difference that truly exists, leading to a false conclusion of no effect. Factors relating to study sensitivity should be evaluated in a systematic manner with the same rigor as the evaluation of other elements within a risk of bias framework. We discuss the importance of this component for the interpretation of individual studies, examine approaches proposed or in use to address it, and describe how it relates to other evaluation components. The evaluation domains contained within a risk of bias tool can include, or can be modified to include, some features relating to study sensitivity; the explicit inclusion of these sensitivity criteria with the same rigor and at the same stage of study evaluation as other bias-related criteria can improve the evaluation process. In some cases, these and other features may be better addressed through a separate sensitivity domain. The combined evaluation of risk of bias and sensitivity can be used to identify the most informative studies, to evaluate the confidence of the findings from individual studies and to identify those study elements that may help to explain heterogeneity across the body of literature.

show abstract

“…Science in Risk Assessment and Policy (SciRAP) is another initiative to develop a structured approach for the evaluation of study reliability and relevance [135, 142]. SciRAP provides criteria for the evaluation of in vivo toxicity and ecotoxicity studies; additional criteria for the evaluation of in vitro studies are under development.…”

Section: Systematic Review – What Is It and How Can It Help?mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Beronius

Vandenberg

2015

Rev Endocr Metab Disord

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The possibility that endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) in our environment contribute to hormonally related effects and diseases observed in human and wildlife populations has caused concern among decision makers and researchers alike. EDCs challenge principles traditionally applied in chemical risk assessment and the identification and assessment of these compounds has been a much debated topic during the last decade. State of the science reports and risk assessments of potential EDCs have been criticized for not using systematic and transparent approaches in the evaluation of evidence. In the fields of medicine and health care, systematic review methodologies have been developed and used to enable objectivity and transparency in the evaluation of scientific evidence for decision making. Lately, such approaches have also been promoted for use in the environmental health sciences and risk assessment of chemicals. Systematic review approaches could provide a tool for improving the evaluation of evidence for decision making regarding EDCs, e.g. by enabling systematic and transparent use of academic research data in this process. In this review we discuss the advantages and challenges of applying systematic review methodology in the identification and assessment of EDCs.

show abstract

Science in Risk Assessment and Policy (SciRAP): An Online Resource for Evaluating and ReportingIn Vivo(Eco)Toxicity Studies

Cited by 39 publications

References 16 publications

Combining web-based tools for transparent evaluation of data for risk assessment: developmental effects of bisphenol A on the mammary gland as a case study

Combining web-based tools for transparent evaluation of data for risk assessment: developmental effects of bisphenol A on the mammary gland as a case study

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

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About