Search

The Science in Risk Assessment and Policy (SciRAP) web-based platform was developed to promote and facilitate structure and transparency in the evaluation of ecotoxicity and toxicity studies for hazard and risk assessment of chemicals. The platform includes sets of criteria and a colour-coding tool for evaluating the reliability and relevance of individual studies. The SciRAP method for evaluating in vivo toxicity studies was first published in 2014 and the aim of the work presented here was to evaluate and develop that method further. Toxicologists and risk assessors from different sectors and geographical areas were invited to test the SciRAP criteria and tool on a specific set of in vivo toxicity studies and to provide feedback concerning the scientific soundness and user-friendliness of the SciRAP approach. The results of this expert assessment were used to refine and improve both the evaluation criteria and the colour-coding tool. It is expected that the SciRAP web-based platform will continue to be developed and enhanced to keep up to date with the needs of end-users., (Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

This is a call for action to scientific journals to introduce reporting requirements for toxicity and ecotoxicity studies. Such reporting requirements will support the use of peer-reviewed research studies in regulatory decision-making. Moreover, this could improve the reliability and reproducibility of published studies in general and make better use of the resources spent in research., (© 2018 The Authors. Journal of Applied Toxicology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The aim of this review was to investigate if and how the application of weight of evidence (WoE) evaluation or systematic review (SR) in chemical risk assessment is promoted within different regulatory frameworks in the European Union. Legislative and relevant guidance documents within nine regulatory frameworks were scrutinized and compared. WoE evaluation or SR is promoted in seven of the investigated frameworks but sufficient guidance for how to perform these processes is generally lacking. None of the investigated frameworks give enough guidance for generating robust and reproducible WoE evaluations or SRs. In conclusion, the foundation for use of WoE evaluation and SR is laid in the majority of the investigated frameworks, but there is a need to provide more structured and detailed guidance. In order to make the process of developing guidance as efficient as possible, and to ensure smooth transfer of risk assessment's between frameworks if a chemical is risk assessed both as, for example, a biocide and an industrial chemical, it is recommended that guidance is developed jointly by the European regulatory agencies., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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.

Regulatory authorities rely on hazard and risk assessments performed under REACH for identifying chemicals of concern and to take action. Therefore, these assessments must be systematic and transparent. This study investigates how registrants evaluate and report data evaluations under REACH and the procedures established by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to support these data evaluations. Data on the endpoint repeated dose toxicity were retrieved from the REACH registration database for 60 substances. An analysis of these data shows that the system for registrants to evaluate data and report these evaluations is neither systematic nor transparent. First, the current framework focuses on reliability, but overlooks the equally important aspect of relevance, as well as how reliability and relevance are combined for determining the adequacy of individual studies. Reliability and relevance aspects are also confused in the ECHA guidance for read-across. Second, justifications for reliability evaluations were mainly based on studies complying with GLP and test guidelines, following the Klimisch method. This may result in GLP and guideline studies being considered reliable by default and discounting non-GLP and non-test guideline data. Third, the reported rationales for reliability were frequently vague, confusing and lacking information necessary for transparency. Fourth, insufficient documentation of a study was sometimes used as a reason for judging data unreliable. Poor reporting merely affects the possibility to evaluate reliability and should be distinguished from methodological deficiencies. Consequently, ECHA is urged to improve the procedures and guidance for registrants to evaluate data under REACH to achieve systematic and transparent risk assessments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

(Eco)toxicity studies conducted according to internationally standardized test guidelines are often considered reliable by default and preferred as key evidence in regulatory risk assessment. At the same time regulatory agencies emphasize the use of all relevant (eco)toxicity data in the risk assessment process, including non-standard studies. However, there is a need to facilitate the use of such studies in regulatory risk assessment. Therefore, we propose a framework that facilitates a systematic and transparent evaluation of the reliability and relevance of (eco)toxicityin vivostudies for health and environmental risk assessment. The framework includes specific criteria to guide study evaluation, as well as a color-coding tool developed to aid the application of these criteria. In addition we provide guidance intended for researchers on how to report non-standard studies to ensure that they meet regulatory requirements. The intention of the evaluating and reporting criteria is to increase the usability of all relevant data that may fill information gaps in chemical risk assessments. The framework is publically available online, free of charge, at the Science in Risk Assessment and Policy (SciRAP) website:www.scirap.org. The aim of this article is to present the framework and resources available at the SciRAP website. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

• COSTER is a set of recommendations for conduct of environmental health systematic reviews (EH SRs). • COSTER's consensus process covered NGOs, academia, industry and government agencies. • COSTER is intended for use by scientists, editors, agencies, and others seeking guidance on EH SRs. • COSTER is put forward to initiate broader discussion of the EH community's expectations for SRs. • COSTER is a first step in defining robust standards for good practice in conduct of EH SRs. There are several standards that offer explicit guidance on good practice in systematic reviews (SRs) for the medical sciences; however, no similarly comprehensive set of recommendations has been published for SRs that focus on human health risks posed by exposure to environmental challenges, chemical or otherwise. To develop an expert, cross-sector consensus view on a key set of recommended practices for the planning and conduct of SRs in the environmental health sciences. A draft set of recommendations was derived from two existing standards for SRs in biomedicine and developed in a consensus process, which engaged international participation from government, industry, non-government organisations, and academia. The consensus process consisted of a workshop, follow-up webinars, email discussion and bilateral phone calls. The C onduct of S ystematic Reviews in T oxicology and E nvironmental Health R esearch (COSTER) recommendations cover 70 SR practices across eight performance domains. Detailed explanations for specific recommendations are made for those identified by the authors as either being novel to SR in general, specific to the environmental health SR context, or potentially controversial to environmental health SR stakeholders. COSTER provides a set of recommendations that should facilitate the production of credible, high-value SRs of environmental health evidence, and advance discussion of a number of controversial aspects of conduct of EH SRs. Key recommendations include the management of conflicts of interest, handling of grey literature, and protocol registration and publication. A process for advancing from COSTER's recommendations to developing a formal standard for EH SRs is also indicated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]