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
. 2017 Jul;91(7):2551-2575.
doi: 10.1007/s00204-017-1980-3. Epub 2017 May 13.

A primer on systematic reviews in toxicology

Sebastian Hoffmann  1   2 , Rob B M de Vries  3 , Martin L Stephens  1 , Nancy B Beck  4 , Hubert A A M Dirven  5 , John R Fowle 3rd  6 , Julie E Goodman  7 , Thomas Hartung  8 , Ian Kimber  9 , Manoj M Lalu  10 , Kristina Thayer  11 , Paul Whaley  12 , Daniele Wikoff  13 , Katya Tsaioun  14
Affiliations

A primer on systematic reviews in toxicology

Sebastian Hoffmann et al. Arch Toxicol. 2017 Jul.

Abstract

Systematic reviews, pioneered in the clinical field, provide a transparent, methodologically rigorous and reproducible means of summarizing the available evidence on a precisely framed research question. Having matured to a well-established approach in many research fields, systematic reviews are receiving increasing attention as a potential tool for answering toxicological questions. In the larger framework of evidence-based toxicology, the advantages and obstacles of, as well as the approaches for, adapting and adopting systematic reviews to toxicology are still being explored. To provide the toxicology community with a starting point for conducting or understanding systematic reviews, we herein summarized available guidance documents from various fields of application. We have elaborated on the systematic review process by breaking it down into ten steps, starting with planning the project, framing the question, and writing and publishing the protocol, and concluding with interpretation and reporting. In addition, we have identified the specific methodological challenges of toxicological questions and have summarized how these can be addressed. Ultimately, this primer is intended to stimulate scientific discussions of the identified issues to fuel the development of toxicology-specific methodology and to encourage the application of systematic review methodology to toxicological issues.

Keywords: Evidence synthesis; Evidence-based toxicology; Narrative review; Review steps; Systematic review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The contents of this manuscript are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of their employers. Sebastian Hoffmann, a self-employed consultant, was paid by the Evidence-Based Toxicology Collaboration (EBTC) for his work on this manuscript. Nancy B. Beck was employed by the American Chemistry Council, a trade association of U.S. chemical manufacturers. Sebastian Hoffmann, Martin L. Stephens, John R. Fowle III, Ian Kimber, Nancy B. Beck, Rob de Vries and Katya Tsaouin are members of the Board of Trustees of the EBTC, which is funded by Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and ExxonMobil Foundation. Hubert Dirven, Julie E. Goodman, Manoj M. Lalu, Kristina Thayer, Paul Whaley and Daniele Wikoff are members of the Scientific Advisory Council of the EBTC. Manoj Lalu was supported by The Ottawa Hospital Anesthesia Alternate Funds Association.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Steps of a systematic review
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Flow chart of the study selection (from Moher et al. 2009) (screening is based on title and abstracts)
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Representative summary table (a) for the risk of bias assessment [green cells with (plus): low risk of bias; yellow cells with (question mark): unknown risk of bias; red cells with (hyphen): high risk of bias] and representative summary (b) of risk of bias analysis across studies (reproduced from Wever et al. 2015)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. AHRQ (2014) Methods guide for effectiveness and comparative effectiveness reviews. https://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/ehc/products/60/318/CER-Methods-Gui.... Accessed 13 Feb 2017 - PubMed
    1. Balshem H, Helfand M, Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Brozek J, Vist GE, Falck-Ytter Y, Meerpohl J, Norris S, Guyatt GH. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):401–406. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.015. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bero L, Anglemyer A, Vesterinen H, Krauth D. The relationship between study sponsorship, risks of bias, and research outcomes in atrazine exposure studies conducted in non-human animals: systematic review and meta-analysis. Environ Int. 2015;92–93:597–604. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Birnbaum LS, Thayer KA, Bucher JR, Wolfe MS. Implementing systematic review at the National toxicology program: status and next steps. Environ Health Perspect. 2013;121(4):A108–A109. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1306711. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Cedergreen N. Quantifying synergy: a systematic review of mixture toxicity studies within environmental toxicology. PLoS One. 2014;9(5):e96580. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0096580. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources