Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comment
. 2014 Mar;122(3):A66-7.
doi: 10.1289/ehp.1307727.

Instruments for assessing risk of bias and other methodological criteria of animal studies: omission of well-established methods

Affiliations
Comment

Instruments for assessing risk of bias and other methodological criteria of animal studies: omission of well-established methods

Nancy B Beck et al. Environ Health Perspect. 2014 Mar.

Erratum in

  • Environ Health Perspect. 2014 Sep;122(9):A234
No abstract available

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors had complete control over the design, conduct, interpretation, and reporting of the analyses included in this letter. The contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official opinions or policies of the authors’ employers or clients.

None of the authors received specific financial support or honorarium as compensation for developing this letter. Several authors are members of the Evidence-Based Toxicology Collaboration (EBTC), and M.L. Stephens and S. Hoffmann serve as the secretariats for the North American and European EBTC Steering Committees, respectively, for which they are compensated for their time. The EBTC’s overall aims are to improve toxicological decision making, facilitate the modernization of the toxicological toolbox, and reinvigorate the safety sciences (see http://www.ebtox.com). S. Hoffmann, J.R. Fowle III, and J. Goodman are consultants and have worked on a range of toxicity and risk assessment issues for a wide variety of clients. R.A. Becker and N.B. Beck are employed by the American Chemistry Council, a trade association of chemical manufacturers. A. Boobis, D. Fergusson, M. Lalu, and M. Leist are employed by institutes of higher education. In the past 3 years, A. Boobis and M. Leist have worked on a range of toxicity and risk assessment issues for a number of clients; this has included some consultancies.

All authors contributed equally and are listed in alphabetical order.

Comment in

Comment on

References

    1. Ågerstrand M, Breitholtz M, Rudén C. 2011Comparison of four different methods for reliability evaluation of ecotoxicity data: a case study of non-standard test data used in environmental risk assessments of pharmaceutical substances. Environ Sci Eur 2317; 10.1186/2190-4715-23-17 - DOI
    1. FDA (Food and Drug Administration). General Guidelines for Designing and Conducting Toxicity Studies. In: Guidance for Industry and Other Stakeholders, Toxicological Principles for the Safety Assessment of Food Ingredients. Redbook. 2003;2000 Available: http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryIn... [accessed 15 October 2013]
    1. Hulzebos E, Gunnarsdottir S, Rila JP, Dang Z, Rorije E. An Integrated Assessment Scheme for assessing the adequacy of (eco)toxicological data under REACH. Toxicol Lett. 2010;198(2):255–262. - PubMed
    1. Krauth D, Woodruff TJ, Bero L.2013Instruments for assessing risk of bias and other methodological criteria of published animal studies: a systematic review. Environ Health Perspect 121985–992.; 10.1289/ehp.1206389 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. NTP (National Toxicology Program). 2013a. Appendix 2: Risk of Bias Guidance for BPA Exposure and Obesity Protocol. Available: http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/NTP/OHAT/EvaluationProcess/Appendix2BPA_Draft.pdf [accessed 13 February 2014].

LinkOut - more resources