Suchergebnisse

Background: Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) confer waterproof, greaseproof, and non-stick properties when added to consumer products. They are also used for industrial purposes including in aqueous film forming foams for firefighting. PFAS are ubiquitous in the environment, are widely detected in human biomonitoring studies, and are of growing regulatory concern across federal, state, and local governments. Regulators, scientists, and citizens need to stay informed on the growing health and toxicology literature related to PFAS. Objectives: The goal of this systematic evidence map is to identify and organize the available health and toxicology related literature on a set of 23 PFAS of emerging and growing concern. Search and study eligibility: We will search the electronic database PubMed for health or toxicological studies on 23 PFAS of emerging concern. Eligible studies must contain primary research investigating the link between one or more of the PFAS of interest and a health effect, toxicological, or biological mechanistic endpoint. Study appraisal and synthesis methods: Title and abstract screening and full text review will require a single reviewer for inclusion to the next level and two independent reviewers for exclusion. Study quality will not be conducted for this evidence mapping. Study characteristics will be extracted from the included studies and checked for accuracy by a second reviewer. The extracted information will be visualized in a publicly available, interactive database hosted on Tableau Public. Results of the evidence mapping will be published in a narrative summary. ; This document was submitted to Environment International for peer review and is to be considered vs 1.0 of this protocol. Subsequent updates to the protocol, including in response to peer reviewer comments, will be made available.

Background: There are several standards which make explicit a consensus view on sound practice in systematic reviews (SRs) for the medical sciences. Until now, no equivalent standard has been published for SRs which focus on human health risks posed by exposure to environmental challenges, chemical or otherwise. Objectives: To develop an expert, cross-sector consensus view on a key set of recommended practices which can function as a standard for the planning and conduct of SRs in the environmental health sciences. Methods: A draft set of practices was derived from two existing standards for SRs in biomedicine and discussed at an international workshop of 33 participants from government, industry, non-government organisations, and academia. The guidance was revised over six follow-up webinars, multiple rounds of email feedback, and bilateral phone calls, until there was group consensus that a comprehensive framework for the planning and conduct of high-quality environmental health SRs had been articulated. Results: The Conduct of Systematic Reviews in Toxicology and Environmental Health Research (COSTER) standard is a code of practice consisting of 70 performance elements across eight performance domains, representing the consensus view of a diverse group of experts as to what constitutes "sound and good" practice in the conduct of environmental health SRs. Discussion: COSTER provides a set of practices which, if followed, should facilitate the production of credible, high-value SRs of environmental health evidence. COSTER clarifies sound and good practice in a number of controversial aspects of SR conduct, including the management of conflicts of interest, inclusion of grey literature, and protocol registration and publication. Not all of the practices are yet commonplace but environmental health SRs would benefit from their use.

Background: There are several standards that offer explicit guidance on good practice in systematic reviews (SRs) for the medical sciences; however, no similarly comprehensive set of recommendations has been published for SRs that focus on human health risks posed by exposure to environmental challenges, chemical or otherwise. Objectives: To develop an expert, cross-sector consensus view on a key set of recommended practices for the planning and conduct of SRs in the environmental health sciences. Methods: A draft set of recommendations was derived from two existing standards for SRs in biomedicine and developed in a consensus process, which engaged international participation from government, industry, non-government organisations, and academia. The consensus process consisted of a workshop, follow-up webinars, email discussion and bilateral phone calls. Results: The Conduct of Systematic Reviews in Toxicology and Environmental Health Research (COSTER) recommendations cover 70 SR practices across eight performance domains. Detailed explanations for specific recommendations are made for those identified by the authors as either being novel to SR in general, specific to the environmental health SR context, or potentially controversial to environmental health SR stakeholders. Discussion: COSTER provides a set of recommendations that should facilitate the production of credible, high-value SRs of environmental health evidence, and advance discussion of a number of controversial aspects of conduct of EH SRs. Key recommendations include the management of conflicts of interest, handling of grey literature, and protocol registration and publication. A process for advancing from COSTER's recommendations to developing a formal standard for EH SRs is also indicated.

Background: There are several standards which make explicit a consensus view on sound practice in systematic reviews (SRs) for the medical sciences. Until now, no equivalent standard has been published for SRs which focus on human health risks posed by exposure to environmental challenges, chemical or otherwise. Objectives: To develop an expert, cross-sector consensus on a core set of requirements for sound practice in planning and conducting a SR in the environmental health sciences. Methods: A draft set of requirements was derived from two existing standards for SRs in biomedicine and discussed at an international workshop of 33 participants from government, industry, non-government organisations, and academia. The guidance was revised over six follow-up webinars and several rounds of email feedback, until there was group consensus that a comprehensive framework for the planning and conduct of high-quality environmental health SRs had been articulated. Results: The Conduct of Systematic Reviews in Toxicology and Environmental Health Research (COSTER) standard is a code of practice consisting of 70 requirements across eight performance domains, representing the consensus view of a diverse group of experts as to what constitutes "sound and good" practice in the conduct of environmental health SRs. Discussion: COSTER provides a set of sound-practice requirements which, if followed, should facilitate the production of credible, high-value SRs of environmental health evidence. COSTER clarifies sound and good practice in a number of controversial aspects of SR conduct, providing requirements relating to management of conflicts of interest, inclusion of grey literature, and protocol registration and publication. Not all of the practices are yet commonplace, but environmental health SRs would benefit from their introduction. Some aspects of SR, such as assessment of external validity at the level of individual study, are not yet sufficiently developed for consensus on sound practice to be achieved.

Background: There are several standards which make explicit a consensus view on sound practice in systematic reviews (SRs) for the medical sciences. Until now, no equivalent standard has been published for SRs which focus on human health risks posed by exposure to environmental challenges, chemical or otherwise. Objectives: To develop an expert, cross-sector consensus on a core set of requirements for sound practice in planning and conducting a SR in the environmental health sciences. Methods: A draft set of requirements was derived from two existing standards for SRs in biomedicine and discussed at an international workshop of 33 participants from government, industry, non-government organisations, and academia. The guidance was revised over six follow-up webinars and several rounds of email feedback, until there was group consensus that a comprehensive framework for the planning and conduct of high-quality environmental health SRs had been articulated. Results: The Conduct of Systematic Reviews in Toxicology and Environmental Health Research (COSTER) standard is a code of practice consisting of 70 requirements across eight performance domains, representing the consensus view of a diverse group of experts as to what constitutes "sound and good" practice in the conduct of environmental health SRs. Discussion: COSTER provides a set of sound-practice requirements which, if followed, should facilitate the production of credible, high-value SRs of environmental health evidence. COSTER clarifies sound and good practice in a number of controversial aspects of SR conduct, providing requirements relating to management of conflicts of interest, inclusion of grey literature, and protocol registration and publication. Not all of the practices are yet commonplace, but environmental health SRs would benefit from their introduction. Some aspects of SR, such as assessment of external validity at the level of individual study, are not yet sufficiently developed for consensus on sound practice to be achieved.

Background There are several standards that offer explicit guidance on good practice in systematic reviews (SRs) for the medical sciences; however, no similarly comprehensive set of recommendations has been published for SRs that focus on human health risks posed by exposure to environmental challenges, chemical or otherwise. Objectives To develop an expert, cross-sector consensus view on a key set of recommended practices for the planning and conduct of SRs in the environmental health sciences. Methods A draft set of recommendations was derived from two existing standards for SRs in biomedicine and developed in a consensus process, which engaged international participation from government, industry, non-government organisations, and academia. The consensus process consisted of a workshop, follow-up webinars, email discussion and bilateral phone calls. Results The Conduct of Systematic Reviews in Toxicology and Environmental Health Research (COSTER) recommendations cover 70 SR practices across eight performance domains. Detailed explanations for specific recommendations are made for those identified by the authors as either being novel to SR in general, specific to the environmental health SR context, or potentially controversial to environmental health SR stakeholders. Discussion COSTER provides a set of recommendations that should facilitate the production of credible, high-value SRs of environmental health evidence, and advance discussion of a number of controversial aspects of conduct of EH SRs. Key recommendations include the management of conflicts of interest, handling of grey literature, and protocol registration and publication. A process for advancing from COSTER's recommendations to developing a formal standard for EH SRs is also indicated.