SwePub
Sök i SwePub databas

  Utökad sökning

Träfflista för sökning "L773:0160 4120 OR L773:1873 6750 srt2:(2015-2019);pers:(Ågerstrand Marlene)"

Sökning: L773:0160 4120 OR L773:1873 6750 > (2015-2019) > Ågerstrand Marlene

  • Resultat 1-4 av 4
Sortera/gruppera träfflistan
   
NumreringReferensOmslagsbildHitta
1.
  • Cooper, Glinda S., et al. (författare)
  • Study sensitivity : Evaluating the ability to detect effects in systematic reviews of chemical exposures
  • 2016
  • Ingår i: Environment International. - : Elsevier BV. - 0160-4120 .- 1873-6750. ; 92-93, s. 605-610
  • Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
    • 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.
  •  
2.
  •  
3.
  • Whaley, Paul, et al. (författare)
  • Implementing systematic review techniques in chemical risk assessment : Challenges, opportunities and recommendations
  • 2016
  • Ingår i: Environment International. - : Elsevier BV. - 0160-4120 .- 1873-6750. ; 92-93, s. 556-564
  • Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
    • Systematic review (SR) is a rigorous, protocol-driven approach designed to minimise error and bias when summarising the body of research evidence relevant to a specific scientific question. Taking as a comparator the use of SR in synthesising research in healthcare, we argue that SR methods could also pave the way for a step change in the transparency, objectivity and communication of chemical risk assessments (CRA) in Europe and elsewhere. We suggest that current controversies around the safety of certain chemicals are partly due to limitations in current CRA procedures which have contributed to ambiguity about the health risks posed by these substances. We present an overview of how SR methods can be applied to the assessment of risks from chemicals, and indicate how challenges in adapting SR methods from healthcare research to the CRA context might be overcome. Regarding the latter, we report the outcomes from a workshop exploring how to increase uptake of SR methods, attended by experts representing a wide range of fields related to chemical toxicology, risk analysis and SR Priorities which were identified include: the conduct of CRA-focused prototype SRs; the development of a recognised standard of reporting and conduct for SRs in toxicology and CRA; and establishing a network to facilitate research, communication and training in SR methods. We see this paper as a milestone in the creation of a research climate that fosters communication between experts in CRA and SR and facilitates wider uptake of SR methods into CRA.
  •  
4.
  • Ågerstrand, Marlene, et al. (författare)
  • Weight of evidence evaluation and systematic review in EU chemical risk assessment : Foundation is laid but guidance is needed
  • 2016
  • Ingår i: Environment International. - : Elsevier BV. - 0160-4120 .- 1873-6750. ; 92-93, s. 590-596
  • Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
    • 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.
  •  
Skapa referenser, mejla, bekava och länka
  • Resultat 1-4 av 4

Kungliga biblioteket hanterar dina personuppgifter i enlighet med EU:s dataskyddsförordning (2018), GDPR. Läs mer om hur det funkar här.
Så här hanterar KB dina uppgifter vid användning av denna tjänst.

 
pil uppåt Stäng

Kopiera och spara länken för att återkomma till aktuell vy