This is a new paper we have published (with the invaluable contributions of a small army of co-authors) about how systematic review methods have potential to make the chemical risk assessment process more transparent and scientifically robust.
You will see a diverse spectrum of contributors which (I will take the liberty of interpreting) amounts to broad endorsement of (a) the need to advance RA methods, and (b) that SR approaches could make a major contribution to this.
The paper should function as a good primer on what SR is and how it should integrate with and improve chemical RA methods. We have ensured it is published open-access (Lancaster University very kindly paid for that), so please download and read.
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.
The research was supported by ESRC funding.