The contribution of epidemiology

Brandt, Piet A. van den; Voorrips, L.E.; Hertz‐Picciotto, Irva; Shuker, David E. G.; Boeing, Heiner; Speijers, G.J.A.; Guittard, Catherine; Kleiner, Juliane; Knowles, Morris; Wolk, Alicja; Goldbohm, Alexandra

doi:10.1016/s0278-6915(01)00114-4

Cited by 52 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 68 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, the quality of quantitative exposure assessment is crucial to HOS used in QRA. In recent years, several frameworks have been developed to assess the quality of HOS for risk assessment [Goldbohm et al 2006; Hertz-Picciotto 1995; Money and Margary 2002; Shore et al 1992; Swaen 2006; van den Brandt et al 2002; World Health Organization (WHO) Working Group 2000]. These frameworks have provided broad overviews of different aspects that contribute to HOS quality.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Guidelines to Evaluate Human Observational Studies for Quantitative Risk Assessment

Vlaanderen

Vermeulen

Heederik

et al. 2008

Environ Health Perspect

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundCareful evaluation of the quality of human observational studies (HOS) is required to assess the suitability of HOS for quantitative risk assessment (QRA). In particular, the quality of quantitative exposure assessment is a crucial aspect of HOS to be considered for QRA.ObjectiveWe aimed to develop guidelines for the evaluation of HOS for QRA and to apply these guidelines to case–control and cohort studies on the relation between exposure to benzene and acute myeloid leukemia (AML).MethodsWe developed a three-tiered framework specific for the evaluation of HOS for QRA and used it to evaluate HOS on the relation between exposure to benzene and AML.ResultsThe developed framework consists of 20 evaluation criteria. A specific focus of the framework was on the quality of exposure assessment applied in HOS. Seven HOS on the relation of benzene and AML were eligible for evaluation. Of these studies, five were suitable for QRA and were ranked based on the quality of the study design, conduct, and reporting on the study.ConclusionThe developed guidelines facilitate a structured evaluation that is transparent in its application and harmonizes the evaluation of HOS for QRA. With the application of the guidelines, it was possible to identify studies suitable for QRA of benzene and AML and rank these studies based on their quality. Application of the guidelines in QRA will be a valuable addition to the assessment of the weight of evidence of HOS for QRA.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Guidelines to Evaluate Human Observational Studies for Quantitative Risk Assessment

Vlaanderen

Vermeulen

Heederik

et al. 2008

Environ Health Perspect

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Systematic reviews and meta‐analysis of observational studies can provide information that strengthens the understanding of the potential hazards of pesticides, exposure–response characterisation, exposure scenarios and methods for assessing exposure, and ultimately risk characterisation (van den Brandt, ). Systematic reviews entail a detailed and comprehensive plan and search strategy defined a priori aimed at reducing bias by identifying, appraising and synthesising all relevant studies on a particular topic.…”

Section: Proposed Use Of Epidemiological Studies and Vigilance Data I...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific Opinion of the PPR Panel on the follow‐up of the findings of the External Scientific Report ‘Literature review of epidemiological studies linking exposure to pesticides and health effects’

Residues¹,

Ockleford²,

Adriaanse³

et al. 2017

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2013, EFSA published a comprehensive systematic review of epidemiological studies published from 2006 to 2012 investigating the association between pesticide exposure and many health outcomes. Despite the considerable amount of epidemiological information available, the quality of much of this evidence was rather low and many limitations likely affect the results so firm conclusions cannot be drawn. Studies that do not meet the 'recognised standards' mentioned in the Regulation (EU) No 1107/2009 are thus not suited for risk assessment. In this Scientific Opinion, the EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their residues (PPR Panel) was requested to assess the methodological limitations of pesticide epidemiology studies and found that poor exposure characterisation primarily defined the major limitation. Frequent use of case-control studies as opposed to prospective studies was considered another limitation. Inadequate definition or deficiencies in health outcomes need to be avoided and reporting of findings could be improved in some cases. The PPR Panel proposed recommendations on how to improve the quality and reliability of pesticide epidemiology studies to overcome these limitations and to facilitate an appropriate use for risk assessment. The Panel recommended the conduct of systematic reviews and meta-analysis, where appropriate, of pesticide observational studies as useful methodology to understand the potential hazards of pesticides, exposure scenarios and methods for assessing exposure, exposure-response characterisation and risk characterisation. Finally, the PPR Panel proposed a methodological approach to integrate and weight multiple lines of evidence, including epidemiological data, for pesticide risk assessment. Biological plausibility can contribute to establishing causation.

show abstract

“…All the different disciplines of toxicity assessment in humans are not mutually exclusive but rather highly interconnected. The goal is to identify and understand the molecular mechanisms of toxicants causing adverse effects in order to ultimately prevent their intake thus increasing food safety [52,168].…”

Section: Toxicity Assessment In Humansmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of food toxicology

Gosslau

2016

Food Science and Human Wellness

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The contribution of epidemiology

Cited by 52 publications

References 68 publications

Guidelines to Evaluate Human Observational Studies for Quantitative Risk Assessment

Guidelines to Evaluate Human Observational Studies for Quantitative Risk Assessment

Scientific Opinion of the PPR Panel on the follow‐up of the findings of the External Scientific Report ‘Literature review of epidemiological studies linking exposure to pesticides and health effects’

Assessment of food toxicology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About