Cargando…

Weight of Evidence for Hazard Identification: A Critical Review of the Literature

BACKGROUND: Transparency when documenting and assessing weight of evidence (WOE) has been an area of increasing focus for national and international health agencies. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this work was to conduct a critical review of WOE analysis methods as a basis for developing a practical f...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Martin, Pierre, Bladier, Claire, Meek, Bette, Bruyere, Olivier, Feinblatt, Eve, Touvier, Mathilde, Watier, Laurence, Makowski, David
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Environmental Health Perspectives 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6108859/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30024384
http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/EHP3067
_version_ 1783350226267930624
author Martin, Pierre
Bladier, Claire
Meek, Bette
Bruyere, Olivier
Feinblatt, Eve
Touvier, Mathilde
Watier, Laurence
Makowski, David
author_facet Martin, Pierre
Bladier, Claire
Meek, Bette
Bruyere, Olivier
Feinblatt, Eve
Touvier, Mathilde
Watier, Laurence
Makowski, David
author_sort Martin, Pierre
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Transparency when documenting and assessing weight of evidence (WOE) has been an area of increasing focus for national and international health agencies. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this work was to conduct a critical review of WOE analysis methods as a basis for developing a practical framework for considering and assessing WOE in hazard identification in areas of application at the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety (ANSES). METHODS: Based on a review of the literature and directed requests to 63 international and national agencies, 116 relevant articles and guidance documents were selected. The WOE approaches were assessed based on three aspects: the extent of their prescriptive nature, their purpose-specific relevance, and their ease of implementation. RESULTS: Twenty-four approaches meeting the specified criteria were identified from selected reviewed documents. Most approaches satisfied one or two of the assessed considerations, but not all three. The approaches were grouped within a practical framework comprising the following four stages: (1) planning the assessment, including scoping, formulating the question, and developing the assessment method; (2) establishing lines of evidence (LOEs), including identifying and selecting studies, assessing their quality, and integrating with studies of similar type; (3) integrating the LOEs to evaluate WOE; and (4) presenting conclusions. DISCUSSION: Based on the review, considerations for selecting methods for a wide range of applications are proposed. Priority areas for further development are identified. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP3067
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6108859
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Environmental Health Perspectives
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-61088592018-08-28 Weight of Evidence for Hazard Identification: A Critical Review of the Literature Martin, Pierre Bladier, Claire Meek, Bette Bruyere, Olivier Feinblatt, Eve Touvier, Mathilde Watier, Laurence Makowski, David Environ Health Perspect Review BACKGROUND: Transparency when documenting and assessing weight of evidence (WOE) has been an area of increasing focus for national and international health agencies. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this work was to conduct a critical review of WOE analysis methods as a basis for developing a practical framework for considering and assessing WOE in hazard identification in areas of application at the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety (ANSES). METHODS: Based on a review of the literature and directed requests to 63 international and national agencies, 116 relevant articles and guidance documents were selected. The WOE approaches were assessed based on three aspects: the extent of their prescriptive nature, their purpose-specific relevance, and their ease of implementation. RESULTS: Twenty-four approaches meeting the specified criteria were identified from selected reviewed documents. Most approaches satisfied one or two of the assessed considerations, but not all three. The approaches were grouped within a practical framework comprising the following four stages: (1) planning the assessment, including scoping, formulating the question, and developing the assessment method; (2) establishing lines of evidence (LOEs), including identifying and selecting studies, assessing their quality, and integrating with studies of similar type; (3) integrating the LOEs to evaluate WOE; and (4) presenting conclusions. DISCUSSION: Based on the review, considerations for selecting methods for a wide range of applications are proposed. Priority areas for further development are identified. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP3067 Environmental Health Perspectives 2018-07-17 /pmc/articles/PMC6108859/ /pubmed/30024384 http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/EHP3067 Text en EHP is an open-access journal published with support from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health. All content is public domain unless otherwise noted.
spellingShingle Review
Martin, Pierre
Bladier, Claire
Meek, Bette
Bruyere, Olivier
Feinblatt, Eve
Touvier, Mathilde
Watier, Laurence
Makowski, David
Weight of Evidence for Hazard Identification: A Critical Review of the Literature
title Weight of Evidence for Hazard Identification: A Critical Review of the Literature
title_full Weight of Evidence for Hazard Identification: A Critical Review of the Literature
title_fullStr Weight of Evidence for Hazard Identification: A Critical Review of the Literature
title_full_unstemmed Weight of Evidence for Hazard Identification: A Critical Review of the Literature
title_short Weight of Evidence for Hazard Identification: A Critical Review of the Literature
title_sort weight of evidence for hazard identification: a critical review of the literature
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6108859/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30024384
http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/EHP3067
work_keys_str_mv AT martinpierre weightofevidenceforhazardidentificationacriticalreviewoftheliterature
AT bladierclaire weightofevidenceforhazardidentificationacriticalreviewoftheliterature
AT meekbette weightofevidenceforhazardidentificationacriticalreviewoftheliterature
AT bruyereolivier weightofevidenceforhazardidentificationacriticalreviewoftheliterature
AT feinblatteve weightofevidenceforhazardidentificationacriticalreviewoftheliterature
AT touviermathilde weightofevidenceforhazardidentificationacriticalreviewoftheliterature
AT watierlaurence weightofevidenceforhazardidentificationacriticalreviewoftheliterature
AT makowskidavid weightofevidenceforhazardidentificationacriticalreviewoftheliterature