Assessing the reliability of ecotoxicological studies: An overview of current needs and approaches.
Average rating
Cast your vote
You can rate an item by clicking the amount of stars they wish to award to this item.
When enough users have cast their vote on this item, the average rating will also be shown.
Star rating
Your vote was cast
Thank you for your feedback
Thank you for your feedback
Authors
Moermond, CarolineBeasley, Amy
Breton, Roger
Junghans, Marion
Laskowski, Ryszard
Solomon, Keith
Zahner, Holly
Type
ArticleLanguage
en
Metadata
Show full item recordTitle
Assessing the reliability of ecotoxicological studies: An overview of current needs and approaches.Published in
Integr Environ Assess Manag 2017 ; 13(4):640-51Publiekssamenvatting
In general, reliable studies are well designed and well performed, and enough details on study design and performance are reported to assess the study. For hazard and risk assessment in various legal frameworks, many different types of ecotoxicity studies need to be evaluated for reliability. These studies vary in study design, methodology, quality, and level of detail reported (e.g., reviews, peer-reviewed research papers, or industry-sponsored studies documented under Good Laboratory Practice [GLP] guidelines). Regulators have the responsibility to make sound and verifiable decisions and should evaluate each study for reliability in accordance with scientific principles regardless of whether they were conducted in accordance with GLP and/or standardized methods. Thus, a systematic and transparent approach is needed to evaluate studies for reliability. In this paper, 8 different methods for reliability assessment were compared using a number of attributes: categorical versus numerical scoring methods, use of exclusion and critical criteria, weighting of criteria, whether methods are tested with case studies, domain of applicability, bias toward GLP studies, incorporation of standard guidelines in the evaluation method, number of criteria used, type of criteria considered, and availability of guidance material. Finally, some considerations are given on how to choose a suitable method for assessing reliability of ecotoxicity studies. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2017;13:640-651. © 2016 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).PMID
27869364ae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.1002/ieam.1870
Scopus Count
Collections
Related articles
- New approach to weight-of-evidence assessment of ecotoxicological effects in regulatory decision-making.
- Authors: Hall AT, Belanger SE, Guiney PD, Galay-Burgos M, Maack G, Stubblefield W, Martin O
- Issue date: 2017 Jul
- Assessing the relevance of ecotoxicological studies for regulatory decision making.
- Authors: Rudén C, Adams J, Ågerstrand M, Brock TC, Poulsen V, Schlekat CE, Wheeler JR, Henry TR
- Issue date: 2017 Jul
- Recommended approaches to the scientific evaluation of ecotoxicological hazards and risks of endocrine-active substances.
- Authors: Matthiessen P, Ankley GT, Biever RC, Bjerregaard P, Borgert C, Brugger K, Blankinship A, Chambers J, Coady KK, Constantine L, Dang Z, Denslow ND, Dreier DA, Dungey S, Gray LE, Gross M, Guiney PD, Hecker M, Holbech H, Iguchi T, Kadlec S, Karouna-Renier NK, Katsiadaki I, Kawashima Y, Kloas W, Krueger H, Kumar A, Lagadic L, Leopold A, Levine SL, Maack G, Marty S, Meador J, Mihaich E, Odum J, Ortego L, Parrott J, Pickford D, Roberts M, Schaefers C, Schwarz T, Solomon K, Verslycke T, Weltje L, Wheeler JR, Williams M, Wolf JC, Yamazaki K
- Issue date: 2017 Mar
- Population-relevant endpoints in the evaluation of endocrine-active substances (EAS) for ecotoxicological hazard and risk assessment.
- Authors: Marty MS, Blankinship A, Chambers J, Constantine L, Kloas W, Kumar A, Lagadic L, Meador J, Pickford D, Schwarz T, Verslycke T
- Issue date: 2017 Mar
- Current limitations and recommendations to improve testing for the environmental assessment of endocrine active substances.
- Authors: Coady KK, Biever RC, Denslow ND, Gross M, Guiney PD, Holbech H, Karouna-Renier NK, Katsiadaki I, Krueger H, Levine SL, Maack G, Williams M, Wolf JC, Ankley GT
- Issue date: 2017 Mar