Cargando…

Lost in the woods: Finding our way back to the scientific method in systematic review

Systematic review has become the preferred approach to addressing causality and informing regulatory and other decision-making processes, including chemical risk assessments. While advocates of systematic reviews acknowledge that they hold great potential for increasing objectivity and transparency...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lynch, Heather N., Mundt, Kenneth A., Pallapies, Dirk, Ricci, Paolo F.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10445984/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37637027
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloepi.2022.100093
_version_ 1785094301935468544
author Lynch, Heather N.
Mundt, Kenneth A.
Pallapies, Dirk
Ricci, Paolo F.
author_facet Lynch, Heather N.
Mundt, Kenneth A.
Pallapies, Dirk
Ricci, Paolo F.
author_sort Lynch, Heather N.
collection PubMed
description Systematic review has become the preferred approach to addressing causality and informing regulatory and other decision-making processes, including chemical risk assessments. While advocates of systematic reviews acknowledge that they hold great potential for increasing objectivity and transparency in assessments of chemicals and human health risks, standardizing and harmonizing systematic review methods have been challenging. This review provides a brief summary of the development of systematic review methods and some of the frameworks currently in use in the US and Europe. We also provide an in-depth evaluation and comparison of two “competing” US EPA systematic review frameworks, informed by the constructively critical recommendations from the US National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine. We conclude with suggestions for moving forward to harmonize systematic review methods, as we believe that further criticism of individual available frameworks likely will be unproductive. Specifically, we issue a call to action for an international collaboration to work toward a blueprint that embraces the most scientifically critical elements common to most systematic review frameworks, while necessarily accommodating adaptations for specific purposes. Despite the array of available systematic review methods, it is clear that there is a shared goal and desire to promote objective assessment and synthesis of scientific evidence informing globally important issues regarding disease causality and human health risk evaluation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10445984
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-104459842023-08-25 Lost in the woods: Finding our way back to the scientific method in systematic review Lynch, Heather N. Mundt, Kenneth A. Pallapies, Dirk Ricci, Paolo F. Glob Epidemiol Commentary Systematic review has become the preferred approach to addressing causality and informing regulatory and other decision-making processes, including chemical risk assessments. While advocates of systematic reviews acknowledge that they hold great potential for increasing objectivity and transparency in assessments of chemicals and human health risks, standardizing and harmonizing systematic review methods have been challenging. This review provides a brief summary of the development of systematic review methods and some of the frameworks currently in use in the US and Europe. We also provide an in-depth evaluation and comparison of two “competing” US EPA systematic review frameworks, informed by the constructively critical recommendations from the US National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine. We conclude with suggestions for moving forward to harmonize systematic review methods, as we believe that further criticism of individual available frameworks likely will be unproductive. Specifically, we issue a call to action for an international collaboration to work toward a blueprint that embraces the most scientifically critical elements common to most systematic review frameworks, while necessarily accommodating adaptations for specific purposes. Despite the array of available systematic review methods, it is clear that there is a shared goal and desire to promote objective assessment and synthesis of scientific evidence informing globally important issues regarding disease causality and human health risk evaluation. Elsevier 2022-11-09 /pmc/articles/PMC10445984/ /pubmed/37637027 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloepi.2022.100093 Text en © 2022 The Author(s) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Commentary
Lynch, Heather N.
Mundt, Kenneth A.
Pallapies, Dirk
Ricci, Paolo F.
Lost in the woods: Finding our way back to the scientific method in systematic review
title Lost in the woods: Finding our way back to the scientific method in systematic review
title_full Lost in the woods: Finding our way back to the scientific method in systematic review
title_fullStr Lost in the woods: Finding our way back to the scientific method in systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Lost in the woods: Finding our way back to the scientific method in systematic review
title_short Lost in the woods: Finding our way back to the scientific method in systematic review
title_sort lost in the woods: finding our way back to the scientific method in systematic review
topic Commentary
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10445984/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37637027
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloepi.2022.100093
work_keys_str_mv AT lynchheathern lostinthewoodsfindingourwaybacktothescientificmethodinsystematicreview
AT mundtkennetha lostinthewoodsfindingourwaybacktothescientificmethodinsystematicreview
AT pallapiesdirk lostinthewoodsfindingourwaybacktothescientificmethodinsystematicreview
AT riccipaolof lostinthewoodsfindingourwaybacktothescientificmethodinsystematicreview