Journal
HUMAN AND ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT
Volume 20, Issue 6, Pages 1427-1445Publisher
TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/10807039.2013.854139
Keywords
chemical risk assessment; reliability evaluation; peer-reviewed non-standard study; reporting requirements; bisphenol A; quality evaluation
Categories
Funding
- Mistra (The Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research)
Ask authors/readers for more resources
In this study we assess the applicability of a set of reliability criteria proposed by angstrom gerstrand etal. This was done by evaluating the reliability of 12 non-standard peer-reviewed ecotoxicity and toxicity studies for Bisphenol A. There was an overall agreement between the evaluator and the authors of the papers regarding the result of the evaluations. This suggests that the criteria offer enough guidance to be a useful and consistent evaluation tool. It provides a transparent and structured approach, and ensures that a minimum and similar set of criteria is used. The evaluation of the peer-reviewed ecotoxicity and toxicity studies concludes that important information is sometimes missing, and therefore the studies do not always meet common regulatory requirements regarding reporting. Whether this is due to insufficient reporting or due to poorly performed studies is not known. To improve the reporting, and thereby promote reliability and reproducibility, researchers, reviewers, and editors are recommended to use the suggested criteria as a guideline. In conclusion, in order to improve the reliability of peer-reviewed studies, and to increase their use in regulatory risk assessments of chemicals, the dialog between regulators, researchers, and editors regarding how to evaluate and report studies needs to be strengthened.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available