ReviewEnvironmental health perspectives2018
Weight of Evidence for Hazard Identification: A Critical Review of the Literature.
Review in Environmental health perspectives, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Integrated evidence supports a causal association between PHMG-P exposure and pneumonitis.Epidemiology and health · 2025Pooled it
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of birth weight and PFNA exposures.Environmental research · 2023Pooled it
- Systematic Review and Weight of Evidence Are Integral to Ecological and Human Health Assessments: They Need an Integrated Framework.Integrated environmental assessment and management · 2020Pooled it
- Advancing the Discovery of Emerging Contaminants: A Leap in Technology and Data.Environmental science & technology · 2026Review
- Bridging gaps between scientific research and regulatory decision-making in Europe: roles of academia, risk assessors, and policymakers.Frontiers in toxicology · 2026Article
- Unlocking the future of environmental safety: a framework for integrating new approach methodologies in decision-making.NAM journal · 2025Article
- The methodology of quantitative risk assessment studies.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2024Review
- Multi-Strategy Assessment of Different Uses of QSAR under REACH Analysis of Alternatives to Advance Information Transparency.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Application of evidence-based methods to construct mechanism-driven chemical assessment frameworks.ALTEX · 2022Article
- An interdisciplinary framework for derivation of occupational exposure limits.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Causal Criteria in Medical and Biological Disciplines: History, Essence, and Radiation Aspects. Report 4, Part 1: The Post-Hill Criteria and Ecolgoical Criteria.Biology bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences · 2022Article
- Article
- Weight of epidemiological evidence for titanium dioxide risk assessment: current state and further needs.Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology · 2020Review
- A Survey of Systematic Evidence Mapping Practice and the Case for Knowledge Graphs in Environmental Health and Toxicology.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTransparency when documenting and assessing weight of evidence (WOE) has been an area of increasing focus for national and international health agencies.
objectiveThe 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).
methodsBased 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.
resultsTwenty-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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.