Characterizing the U-shaped exposure response relationship for manganese (Mn) is necessary for estimating the risk of adverse health from Mn toxicity due to excess or deficiency. Categorical regression has emerged as a powerful tool for exposure-response analysis because of its ability to synthesize relevant information across multiple studies and species into a single integrated analysis of all relevant data. This paper documents the development of a database on Mn toxicity designed to support the application of categorical regression techniques. Specifically, we describe (i) the conduct of a systematic search of the literature on Mn toxicity to gather data appropriate for dose-response assessment; (ii) the establishment of inclusion/exclusion criteria for data to be included in the categorical regression modeling database; (iii) the development of a categorical severity scoring matrix for Mn health effects to permit the inclusion of diverse health outcomes in a single categorical regression analysis using the severity score as the outcome variable; and (iv) the convening of an international expert panel to both review the severity scoring matrix and assign severity scores to health outcomes observed in studies (including case reports, epidemiological investigations, and in vivo experimental studies) selected for inclusion in the categorical regression database. Exposure information including route, concentration, duration, health endpoint(s), and characteristics of the exposed population was abstracted from included studies and stored in a computerized manganese database (MnDB), providing a comprehensive repository of exposure-response information with the ability to support categorical regression modeling of oral exposure data.
Systematic reviews provide a structured framework for summarizing the available evidence in a comprehensive, objective, and transparent manner. They inform evidence-based guidelines in medicine, public policy, and more recently, in environmental health and toxicology. Many regulatory agencies have extended and adapted the wellestablished systematic review methods, initially developed for clinical studies, for their assessment needs. The use of systematic reviews to summarize evidence from existing human, animal, and mechanistic studies can reduce reliance on animal test data in risk assessment and can help avoid unnecessary duplication of animal experiments that have already been conducted. As alternative test methods can be expected to play an increasing role in human health risk assessment in the future, systematic reviews can be particularly helpful in validating these alternatives. The field of evidence-based toxicology has undergone extensive development since its first meeting in 2007 as a result of collaborative efforts among international experts and public health agencies, particularly with respect to the use of mechanistic data and evidence integration. The continued development and wider adoption of systematic review methodology can lead to better 3R implementation. As undertaking a systematic review can be a complex and lengthy process, it is important to understand the main steps involved. Key steps, along with current best practices, are described with references to guidance from organizations with expertise in evidence synthesis. Applications of systematic reviews in clinical, observational, and experimental studies are presented. Finally, software tools available to facilitate and increase the efficiency of completing a systematic review are described. * This paper is part of the proceedings of the workshop on Development of an Evidence Based Risk Assessment Framework held at the University of Ottawa in December 2018.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.