000229534 001__ 229534
000229534 005__ 20181203024742.0
000229534 0247_ $$2doi$$a10.1002/ieam.1870
000229534 022__ $$a1551-3777
000229534 02470 $$2ISI$$a000403466400012
000229534 037__ $$aARTICLE
000229534 245__ $$aAssessing the reliability of ecotoxicological studies: An overview of current needs and approaches
000229534 260__ $$aHoboken$$bSociety of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry Press$$c2017
000229534 269__ $$a2017
000229534 300__ $$a12
000229534 336__ $$aJournal Articles
000229534 520__ $$aIn general, reliable studies are well designed and well performed, and enough details on study design and performance are reported to assess the study. For hazard and risk assessment in various legal frameworks, many different types of ecotoxicity studies need to be evaluated for reliability. These studies vary in study design, methodology, quality, and level of detail reported (e.g., reviews, peer-reviewed research papers, or industry-sponsored studies documented under Good Laboratory Practice [GLP] guidelines). Regulators have the responsibility to make sound and verifiable decisions and should evaluate each study for reliability in accordance with scientific principles regardless of whether they were conducted in accordance with GLP and/or standardized methods. Thus, a systematic and transparent approach is needed to evaluate studies for reliability. In this paper, 8 different methods for reliability assessment were compared using a number of attributes: categorical versus numerical scoring methods, use of exclusion and critical criteria, weighting of criteria, whether methods are tested with case studies, domain of applicability, bias toward GLP studies, incorporation of standard guidelines in the evaluation method, number of criteria used, type of criteria considered, and availability of guidance material. Finally, some considerations are given on how to choose a suitable method for assessing reliability of ecotoxicity studies. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2017;13:640-651. (c) 2016 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC)
000229534 6531_ $$aHazard assessment
000229534 6531_ $$aRisk assessment
000229534 6531_ $$aQuality evaluation
000229534 6531_ $$aLiterature evaluation
000229534 6531_ $$aReliability assessment
000229534 700__ $$aMoermond, Caroline$$uNatl Inst Publ Hlth & Environm RIVM, Ctr Safety Subst & Prod, Bilthoven, Netherlands
000229534 700__ $$aBeasley, Amy$$uDow Chem Co USA, Toxicol & Environm Res & Consulting, Midland, MI 48674 USA
000229534 700__ $$aBreton, Roger$$uIntrinsik, Ottawa, ON, Canada
000229534 700__ $$aJunghans, Marion$$uSwiss Ctr Appl Ecotoxicol Eawag EPFL, Dubendorf, Switzerland
000229534 700__ $$aLaskowski, Ryszard$$uJagiellonian Univ, Inst Environm Sci, Krakow, Poland
000229534 700__ $$aSolomon, Keith$$uUniv Guelph, Sch Environm Sci, Ctr Toxicol, Guelph, ON, Canada
000229534 700__ $$aZahner, Holly
000229534 773__ $$j13$$k4$$q640-651$$tIntegrated Environmental Assessment And Management
000229534 909C0 $$0252506$$pECOTOX$$xUS18204
000229534 909CO $$ooai:infoscience.tind.io:229534$$particle$$pENAC
000229534 917Z8 $$x242289
000229534 937__ $$aEPFL-ARTICLE-229534
000229534 973__ $$aOTHER$$rREVIEWED$$sPUBLISHED
000229534 980__ $$aARTICLE