A proposed framework for the systematic review and integrated assessment (SYRINA) of endocrine disrupting chemicals

Environmental Health

Methodology

Claire Beausoleil¹  Karen A. Kidd²  Malcolm R. Macleod³  Lisa A. Bero⁴  Laura N. Vandenberg⁵  Philippe Grandjean⁶  Marlene Ågerstrand⁷  Christina Rudén⁷  Åke Bergman⁸  Kristina A. Thayer⁹  Carl-Gustaf Bornehag^1,10  Martin Scheringer^1,11  Andreas Kortenkamp^1,12  Susan Jobling^1,12  David Gee^1,12  Olwenn V. Martin^1,12  Anna Beronius^1,13  Kathryn Z. Guyton^1,14  Paul Whaley^1,15  Ulla Hass^1,16  Jerrold J. Heindel^1,17  Tracey J. Woodruff^1,18  Ian Cotgreave^1,19  Ulf Norinder^2,20  C. Scott Boyer^2,20  Glinda S. Cooper^2,21  Jorma Toppari^2,22 

[1] ANSES (French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health Safety), Maisons Alfort, France;Biology Department and Canadian Rivers Institute, University of New Brunswick, Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada;Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK;Charles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia;Department of Environmental Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Amherst School of Public Health & Health Sciences, Amherst, MA, USA;Department of Environmental Medicine, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark;Department of Environmental Science and Analytical Chemistry, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden;Department of Environmental Science and Analytical Chemistry, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden;Swedish Toxicology Sciences Research Center, Södertälje, Sweden;Department of Health and Human Services, Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA;Department of health sciences, Karlstad University, Karlstad, Sweden;Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, USA;Institute for Chemical and Bioengineering, ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland;Institute of Environment, Health and Societies, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, UK;Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden;International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France;Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK;National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Søborg, Denmark;National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Division of Extramural Research and Training, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA;School of Medicine, Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment, University of California, San Francisco, Oakland, CA, USA;Swedish Toxicology Sciences Research Center (Swetox), Karolinska Institutet, Södertälje, Sweden;Swedish Toxicology Sciences Research Center, Södertälje, Sweden;US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA;University of Turku, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland;

关键词: Endocrine disrupting chemicals;    Systematic review;    Study evaluation;    Strength of evidence;    Weight of evidence;    Adverse effect;    Endocrine disrupting activity;    Evidence integration;    Epidemiology;    In vivo;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s12940-016-0156-6

 received in 2016-04-04, accepted in 2016-06-17,  发布年份 2016

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundThe issue of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) is receiving wide attention from both the scientific and regulatory communities. Recent analyses of the EDC literature have been criticized for failing to use transparent and objective approaches to draw conclusions about the strength of evidence linking EDC exposures to adverse health or environmental outcomes. Systematic review methodologies are ideal for addressing this issue as they provide transparent and consistent approaches to study selection and evaluation. Objective methods are needed for integrating the multiple streams of evidence (epidemiology, wildlife, laboratory animal, in vitro, and in silico data) that are relevant in assessing EDCs.MethodsWe have developed a framework for the systematic review and integrated assessment (SYRINA) of EDC studies. The framework was designed for use with the International Program on Chemical Safety (IPCS) and World Health Organization (WHO) definition of an EDC, which requires appraisal of evidence regarding 1) association between exposure and an adverse effect, 2) association between exposure and endocrine disrupting activity, and 3) a plausible link between the adverse effect and the endocrine disrupting activity.ResultsBuilding from existing methodologies for evaluating and synthesizing evidence, the SYRINA framework includes seven steps: 1) Formulate the problem; 2) Develop the review protocol; 3) Identify relevant evidence; 4) Evaluate evidence from individual studies; 5) Summarize and evaluate each stream of evidence; 6) Integrate evidence across all streams; 7) Draw conclusions, make recommendations, and evaluate uncertainties. The proposed method is tailored to the IPCS/WHO definition of an EDC but offers flexibility for use in the context of other definitions of EDCs.ConclusionsWhen using the SYRINA framework, the overall objective is to provide the evidence base needed to support decision making, including any action to avoid/minimise potential adverse effects of exposures. This framework allows for the evaluation and synthesis of evidence from multiple evidence streams. Finally, a decision regarding regulatory action is not only dependent on the strength of evidence, but also the consequences of action/inaction, e.g. limited or weak evidence may be sufficient to justify action if consequences are serious or irreversible.

【 授权许可】

CC BY   
© The Author(s). 2016