Search

Systematic reviews are powerful tools for drawing causal inference for evidence-based decision-making. Published systematic reviews and meta-analyses of environmental and occupational epidemiology studies have increased dramatically in recent years; however, the quality and utility of published reviews are variable. Most methodologies were adapted from clinical epidemiology and have not been adequately modified to evaluate and integrate evidence from observational epidemiology studies assessing environmental and occupational hazards, especially in evaluating the quality of exposure assessments. Although many reviews conduct a systematic and transparent assessment for the potential for bias, they are often deficient in subsequently integrating across a body of evidence. A cohesive review considers the impact of the direction and magnitude of potential biases on the results, systematically evaluates important scientific issues such as study sensitivity and effect modifiers, identifies how different studies complement each other, and assesses other potential sources of heterogeneity. Given these challenges of conducting informative systematic reviews of observational studies, we provide a series of specific recommendations based on practical examples for cohesive evidence integration to reach an overall conclusion on a body of evidence to better support policy making in public health.

Background Systematic reviews are increasingly prevalent in environmental health due to their ability to synthesize evidence while reducing bias. Different systematic review methods have been developed by the US National Toxicology Program’s Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT), the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), and by the US EPA under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), including the approach to assess risk of bias (ROB), one of the most vital steps which is used to evaluate internal validity of the studies. Our objective was to compare the performance of three tools (OHAT, IRIS, TSCA) in assessing ROB. Methods We selected a systematic review on polybrominated diphenyl ethers and intelligence quotient and/or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder because it had been endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences. Two reviewers followed verbatim instructions from the tools and independently applied each tool to assess ROB in 15 studies previously identified. We documented the time to apply each tool and the impact the ROB ratings for each tool had on the final rating of the quality of the overall body of evidence. Results The time to complete the ROB assessments varied widely (mean = 20, 32, and 40 min per study for the OHAT, IRIS, and TSCA tools, respectively). All studies were rated overall “low” or “uninformative” using IRIS, due to “deficient” or “critically deficient” ratings in one or two domains. Similarly, all studies were rated “unacceptable” using the TSCA tool because of one “unacceptable” rating in a metric related to statistical power. Approximately half of the studies had “low” or “probably low ROB” ratings across all domains with the OHAT and Navigation Guide tools. Conclusions Tools that use overall ROB or study quality ratings, such as IRIS and TSCA, may reduce the available evidence to assess the harms of environmental exposures by erroneously excluding studies, which leads to inaccurate conclusions about the quality of the body of evidence. We recommend using ROB tools that circumvents these issues, such as OHAT and Navigation Guide. Systematic review registration This review has not been registered as it is not a systematic review.

The inherent complexity of generating and monitoring a test article in an inhalation chamber can make inhalation toxicity testing challenging. Poor study design, human error, and electrical and mechanical problems can adversely affect an inhalation exposure and undermine a study's results. We have developed a process for evaluating seven key elements of exposure quality in inhalation chamber studies: 1) test article characterization, 2) generation method, 3) chamber sampling and analytical method, 4) chamber concentrations, 5) particle size characteristics, 6) chamber type, and 7) controls. For each study evaluated, exposure deficiencies are documented, and a study is given an overall rating (Robust, Adequate, or Poor) for the quality of its exposure characterization and documentation. In combination with the systematic consideration of experimental features other than exposure, these ratings can inform the utility of a study for use in hazard identification and/or exposure-response analysis. Exposure quality evaluations of 204 formaldehyde inhalation studies are presented as a case study. Of these, 34% were rated Robust because they had comprehensive exposure documentation and no serious deficiencies in the key elements of exposure quality. Another 19% of studies with minor uncertainties or limitations were rated Adequate. Conversely, 47% of the studies were rated Poor due to multiple serious exposure deficiencies. This formaldehyde case study illustrates the need to carefully consider the exposure quality of inhalation toxicity studies when their results are used to support hazard and risk assessments.

A critical step in systematic reviews of potential health hazards is the structured evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the included studies; risk of bias is a term often used to represent this process, specifically with respect to the evaluation of systematic errors that can lead to inaccurate (biased) results (i.e. focusing on internal validity). Systematic review methods developed in the clinical medicine arena have been adapted for use in evaluating environmental health hazards; this expansion raises questions about the scope of risk of bias tools and the extent to which they capture the elements that can affect the interpretation of results from environmental and occupational epidemiology studies and in vivo animal toxicology studies, (the studies typically available for assessment of risk of chemicals). One such element, described here as “sensitivity”, is a measure of the ability of a study to detect a true effect or hazard. This concept is similar to the concept of the sensitivity of an assay; an insensitive study may fail to show a difference that truly exists, leading to a false conclusion of no effect. Factors relating to study sensitivity should be evaluated in a systematic manner with the same rigor as the evaluation of other elements within a risk of bias framework. We discuss the importance of this component for the interpretation of individual studies, examine approaches proposed or in use to address it, and describe how it relates to other evaluation components. The evaluation domains contained within a risk of bias tool can include, or can be modified to include, some features relating to study sensitivity; the explicit inclusion of these sensitivity criteria with the same rigor and at the same stage of study evaluation as other bias-related criteria can improve the evaluation process. In some cases, these and other features may be better addressed through a separate sensitivity domain. The combined evaluation of risk of bias and sensitivity can be used to identify the most informative studies, to evaluate the confidence of the findings from individual studies and to identify those study elements that may help to explain heterogeneity across the body of literature. Keywords: Systematic review, Validity, Bias, Environmental health, Chemical hazard assessment, Study sensitivity

Many epidemiologic studies are designed so they can be drawn upon to provide scientific evidence for evaluating hazards of environmental exposures, conducting quantitative assessments of risk, and informing decisions designed to reduce or eliminate harmful exposures. However, experimental animal studies are often relied upon for environmental and public health policy making despite the expanding body of observational epidemiologic studies that could inform the relationship between actual, as opposed to controlled, exposures and health effects. This paper provides historical examples of how epidemiology has informed decisions at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, discusses some challenges with using epidemiology to inform decision making, and highlights advances in the field that may help address these challenges and further the use of epidemiologic studies moving forward.

The assessment of risk from environmental and occupational exposures incorporates and synthesizes data from a variety of scientific disciplines including toxicology and epidemiology. Epidemiological data have offered valuable contributions to the identification of human health hazards, estimation of human exposures, quantification of the exposure–response relation, and characterization of risks to specific target populations including sensitive populations. As with any scientific discipline, there are some uncertainties inherent in these data; however, the best human health risk assessments utilize all available information, characterizing strengths and limitations as appropriate. Human health risk assessors evaluating environmental and occupational exposures have raised concerns about the validity of using epidemiological data for risk assessment due to actual or perceived study limitations. This article highlights three concerns commonly raised during the development of human health risk assessm...

To be presented in an accepted mini-symposium Introduction Frameworks and tools developed to evaluate observational studies of environmental and occupational exposures for systematic reviews draw from similar efforts in the field of healthcare management to achieve increased transparency in assessment conclusions. Methods This presentation compares approaches developed by U.S. and European government and academic institutions that evaluate risk of bias and sensitivity for observational studies of environmental and occupational exposures. An international collaborative project to adapt a risk of bias tool developed by the Cochrane Collaborative (Risk of Bias in Non-Randomised Studies of Interventions) that will address the varied study designs and exposure assessment methods used in these types of studies is described. Results Several commonalities are identified, including the use of signalling questions to guide evaluations, outcome-specific rather than study-specific evaluations, and avoidance of numeric scores. All frameworks evaluate participant selection/attrition/exclusion, confounding, reliability and validity of exposure and outcome assessments, and selective reporting. Less consistently used domains are analytic methods, sensitivity, and conflict of interest. The frameworks use different approaches to derive an overall conclusion about risk of bias or confidence. Conclusion As with narrative reviews, structured frameworks depend heavily on expert judgement requiring the involvement of reviewers with the correct discipline-specific expertise. The transparency of the overall evidence integration in a systematic review depends on the knowledgeable and clear presentation of study evaluation conclusions. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views or policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Background: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) completed a toxicological review of tetrachloroethylene (perchloroethylene, PCE) in February 2012 in support of the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). Objectives: We reviewed key findings and scientific issues regarding the human health effects of PCE described in the U.S. EPA’s Toxicological Review of Tetrachloroethylene (Perchloroethylene). Methods: The updated assessment of PCE synthesized and characterized a substantial database of epidemiological, experimental animal, and mechanistic studies. Key scientific issues were addressed through modeling of PCE toxicokinetics, synthesis of evidence from neurological studies, and analyses of toxicokinetic, mechanistic, and other factors (tumor latency, severity, and background rate) in interpreting experimental animal cancer findings. Considerations in evaluating epidemiological studies included the quality (e.g., specificity) of the exposure assessment methods and other essential design features, and the potential for alternative explanations for observed associations (e.g., bias or confounding). Discussion: Toxicokinetic modeling aided in characterizing the complex metabolism and multiple metabolites that contribute to PCE toxicity. The exposure assessment approach—a key evaluation factor for epidemiological studies of bladder cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and multiple myeloma—provided suggestive evidence of carcinogenicity. Bioassay data provided conclusive evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. Neurotoxicity was identified as a sensitive noncancer health effect, occurring at low exposures: a conclusion supported by multiple studies. Evidence was integrated from human, experimental animal, and mechanistic data sets in assessing adverse health effects of PCE. Conclusions: PCE is likely to be carcinogenic to humans. Neurotoxicity is a sensitive adverse health effect of PCE. Citation: Guyton KZ, Hogan KA, Scott CS, Cooper GS, Bale AS, Kopylev L, Barone S Jr, Makris SL, Glenn B, Subramaniam RP, Gwinn MR, Dzubow RC, Chiu WA. 2014. Human health effects of tetrachloroethylene: key findings and scientific issues. Environ Health Perspect 122:325–334; http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1307359

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) co-organized a symposium on “Air Pollution Exposure and Health” at Research Triangle Park, North Carolina on September 19–20, 2006. The symposium brought together health and environmental scientists to discuss the state of the science and the cross-jurisdictional and methodological challenges in conducting air pollution epidemiology, environmental public health tracking and accountability research. The symposium was held over 2 days and consisted of technical presentations and breakout group discussions on each of the three principal themes of this meeting: (1) monitoring and exposure modeling information, (2) health effects data and (3) linkage of air quality and health data for research, tracking and accountability. This paper summarizes the symposium presentations and the conclusions and recommendations developed during the meeting. The accompanying two papers, which appear in this issue of the Journal, provide more in-depth discussion of issues pertinent to obtaining and analyzing air pollution exposure and health information. The symposium succeeded in identifying areas where there are critical gaps of knowledge in existing air pollution exposure and health information and in discovering institutional or programmatic barriers, which impede accessing and linking disparate data sets. Several suggestions and recommendations emerged from this meeting, directed toward (1) improving the utility of air monitoring data for exposure quantification, (2) improving access to and the quality of health data, (3) studying emerging air quality and health issues, (4) exploring improved or novel methods for linking data and (5) developing partnerships, building capacity and facilitating interdisciplinary communication. The meeting was successful in promoting an interdisciplinary dialogue around these issues and in formulating strategies to support these recommended activities. Finally, this symposium subsequently led to strengthening and initiating new partnerships or interactions between the EPA, CDC, States, academia and the research community at large.

Background: EPA is currently drafting a Toxicological Review of formaldehyde. As part of the comprehensive evaluation of potential hazards associated with exposure to formaldehyde, the hazards for ...

Background and Aims: We reviewed the evidence supporting an association between formaldehyde exposure and increased risks of spontaneous abortion or miscarriage. Several reports of adverse reproduc...

Several studies have examined longitudinal associations of blood pressure change or hypertension incidence with lead concentration in blood or bone. It is not clear whether the observed associations reflect an immediate response to lead as a consequence of recent dose or rather are a persistent effect of cumulative dose over a lifetime.We followed 575 subjects in a lead-exposed occupational cohort in South Korea between October 1997 and June 2001. We used generalized estimating equation models to evaluate blood pressure change between study visits in relation to tibia lead concentrations at each prior visit and concurrent changes in blood lead. The modeling strategy summarized the longitudinal association of blood pressure with cumulative lead dose or changes in recent lead dose.On average, participants were 41 years old at baseline and had worked 8.5 years in lead-exposed jobs. At baseline, the average +/- standard deviation for blood lead was 31.4 +/- 14.2 microg/dL, and for tibia lead, it was 38.4 +/- 42.9 microg/g bone mineral. Change in systolic blood pressure during the study was associated with concurrent blood lead change, with an average annual increase of 0.9 (95% confidence interval = 0.1 to 1.6) mm Hg for every 10-microg/dL increase in blood lead per year.The findings in this relatively young population of current and former lead workers suggest that systolic blood pressure responds to lead dose through acute pathways in addition to the effects of cumulative injury.

Several investigators have reported an association of blood lead or bone lead with increased blood pressure and hypertension, but questions remain concerning whether these effects are acute or chronic in nature.In this longitudinal study, we evaluated the relation of lead, measured in blood and tibia, to changes in blood pressure between 1994 and 1998. We studied 496 current and former employees of a chemical-manufacturing facility in the eastern United States who had previous occupational exposure to inorganic and organic lead. Cohort members who provided three or four blood pressure measurements during the study were included.Mean age at baseline was 55.8 years with a mean of 18 years since last occupational exposure to lead. Blood lead at baseline averaged 4.6 microg/dL (standard deviation [SD] = 2.6) or 0.22 micromole/Liter (SD = 0.13). Tibia lead at year three averaged 14.7-microg/gm (SD = 9.4) bone mineral. Change in systolic blood pressure during the study was associated with lead dose, with an average annual increase of 0.64 mmHg (standard error [SE] = 0.25), 0.73 mmHg (SE = 0.26), and 0.61 mmHg (SE = 0.27) for every standard deviation increase in blood lead at baseline, tibia lead at year three, or peak past tibia lead, respectively.The results support an etiologic role for lead in the elevation of systolic blood pressure among adult males and are consistent with both acute and chronic modes of action.

Lead is associated with elevated blood pressure, although the mechanism of action is unknown. Genetic differences in sodium-potassium adenosine triphosphatase (Na(+)-K(+)ATPase) could explain some of the variation in the strength of the blood pressure-blood lead relation that has been observed in previous studies. In 1996-1997, the authors studied the association of blood pressure, hypertension prevalence, and polymorphisms in the gene for the alpha 2 subunit of Na(+)-K(+)ATPase (ATP1A2) among 220 former organolead manufacturing workers from New Jersey. Subjects were genotyped for a restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) on the ATP1A2 gene. The association between blood lead and blood pressure was stronger among persons who were homozygous for the variant allele. Genotype was also associated with hypertension (adjusted odds ratio = 7.7; 95% confidence interval: 1.9, 31.4). Finally, the variant allele was 1.8 times more common among African Americans than among Caucasians. The RFLP may indicate susceptibility to the effect of lead on blood pressure. Moreover, the alpha 2 gene (or a closely linked gene) may contribute to the pathophysiology of hypertension. However, because the number of subjects (especially African Americans) with the susceptible genotype in this study was small, these observations should be considered preliminary.

To the Editor.— Several articles that discuss the benefits of consuming fish and fish oils have appeared in JAMA and other journals. Numerous epidemiologic studies and clinical trials have addressed the relationship between consumption of ω-J polyunsaturated fatty acids (ω-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids) derived from fish oils and the incidence of disease. Kromhout et al 1 found an inverse relationship between fish consumption and 20-year mortality from coronary heart disease and suggest that ingesting as little as 30 g of fish per day (a single 1/2-lb fish meal per week) may be of value in preventing coronary heart disease. Further, ingestion of ω-J polyunsaturated fatty acids may be associated with decreased levels of plasma triglycerides, plasma cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein, and very-low— density lipoprotein. 2 Fish oils also may play a role in the treatment of autoimmune and inflammatory disorders, psoriasis, and atopic dermatitis. However, there is conflicting information on the