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
Review
. 2018 Jul 17;126(7):076001.
doi: 10.1289/EHP3067. eCollection 2018 Jul.

Weight of Evidence for Hazard Identification: A Critical Review of the Literature

Pierre Martin  1   2 , Claire Bladier  3 , Bette Meek  4 , Olivier Bruyere  5 , Eve Feinblatt  3 , Mathilde Touvier  6 , Laurence Watier  7 , David Makowski  8
Affiliations
Review

Weight of Evidence for Hazard Identification: A Critical Review of the Literature

Pierre Martin et al. Environ Health Perspect. .

Abstract

Background: Transparency when documenting and assessing weight of evidence (WOE) has been an area of increasing focus for national and international health agencies.

Objective: The objective of this work was to conduct a critical review of WOE analysis methods as a basis for developing a practical framework for considering and assessing WOE in hazard identification in areas of application at the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety (ANSES).

Methods: Based on a review of the literature and directed requests to 63 international and national agencies, 116 relevant articles and guidance documents were selected. The WOE approaches were assessed based on three aspects: the extent of their prescriptive nature, their purpose-specific relevance, and their ease of implementation.

Results: Twenty-four approaches meeting the specified criteria were identified from selected reviewed documents. Most approaches satisfied one or two of the assessed considerations, but not all three. The approaches were grouped within a practical framework comprising the following four stages: (1) planning the assessment, including scoping, formulating the question, and developing the assessment method; (2) establishing lines of evidence (LOEs), including identifying and selecting studies, assessing their quality, and integrating with studies of similar type; (3) integrating the LOEs to evaluate WOE; and (4) presenting conclusions.

Discussion: Based on the review, considerations for selecting methods for a wide range of applications are proposed. Priority areas for further development are identified. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP3067.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Conceptual diagram
Figure 1.
Keywords combined to produce the Scopus and PubMed search query.
Flow diagram of the study selection process. The stages are as follows: Identification, screening, eligibility, and included.
Figure 2.
Flow diagram of the study selection process using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA, Moher et al. 2009).
Description of the stages addressed in the five WOE frameworks
Figure 3.
Stages addressed in the five WOE frameworks identified in the literature.
Flow diagram showing weight of evidence assessment. The stages are as follows: Planning the assessment, Establishing LOE, Integrating LOE, Expressing WOE conclusions.
Figure 4.
Practical framework for weight of evidence assessment.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Adami HO Sir Berry CL, Breckenridge CB, Smith LL, Swenberg JA, Trichopoulos D. 2011. Toxicology and epidemiology: improving the science with a framework for combining toxicological and epidemiological evidence to establish causal inference. Toxicol Sci 122(2):223–234, PMID: 21561883, 10.1093/toxsci/kfr113. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Akl EA, Maroun N, Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Alonso-Coello P, Vist GE, et al. 2007. Symbols were superior to numbers for presenting strength of recommendations to health care consumers: a randomized trial. J Clin Epidemiol 60(12):1298–1305, PMID: 17998085, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.011. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Andrews JC, Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Pottie K, Meerpohl JJ, Coello PA, et al. 2013a. GRADE guidelines: 15. Going from evidence to recommendation-determinants of a recommendation's direction and strength. J Clin Epidemiol 66(7):726–735, PMID: 23570745, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.02.003. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Andrews J, Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Alderson P, Dahm P, Falck-Ytter Y, et al. 2013b. GRADE guidelines: 14. Going from evidence to recommendations: the significance and presentation of recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol 66(7):719–725, PMID: 23312392, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.03.013. - DOI - PubMed
    1. ANSES (Agence nationale de sécurité sanitaire de l’alimentation, de l’environnement et du travail). 2012. IAvis et rapport de l'ANSES relatif à l'Étude des liens entre facteurs de croissance, consommation de lait et de produits laitiers et cancers [in French]. Maisons-Alfort, France: ANSES.

Substances