Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31192353›Full record

ArticleToxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology2019

Adaptation of the Systematic Review Framework to the Assessment of Toxicological Test Methods: Challenges and Lessons Learned With the Zebrafish Embryotoxicity Test.

Martin L Stephens, Sevcan Gül Akgün-Ölmez, Sebastian Hoffmann, Rob de Vries, Burkhard Flick, Thomas Hartung, Manoj Lalu, Alexandra Maertens, Hilda Witters, Robert Wright and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Martin L StephensEvidence-Based Toxicology Collaboration (EBTC), Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, 21205.
Sevcan Gül Akgün-ÖlmezDepartment of Pharmaceutical Toxicology, Faculty of Pharmacy, Marmara University, 34722 Istanbul, Turkey.
Sebastian HoffmannEvidence-Based Toxicology Collaboration (EBTC), Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, 21205.
Rob de VriesEvidence-Based Toxicology Collaboration (EBTC), Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, 21205.
Burkhard FlickBASF SE, 67063 Ludwigshafen am Rhein, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7951-1820
Thomas HartungCenter for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT), Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland 21205.
Manoj LaluDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine.
Alexandra MaertensCenter for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT), Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland 21205.
Hilda WittersVITO NV, 2400 Mol, Belgium.
Robert WrightWilliam H. Welch Medical Library, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21205.
Katya TsaiounEvidence-Based Toxicology Collaboration (EBTC), Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, 21205.ORCID 0000-0002-8378-0430

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Systematic review methodology is a means of addressing specific questions through structured, consistent, and transparent examinations of the relevant scientific evidence. This methodology has been used to advantage in clinical medicine, and is being adapted for use in other disciplines. Although some applications to toxicology have been explored, especially for hazard identification, the present preparatory study is, to our knowledge, the first attempt to adapt it to the assessment of toxicological test methods. As our test case, we chose the zebrafish embryotoxicity test (ZET) for developmental toxicity and its mammalian counterpart, the standard mammalian prenatal development toxicity study, focusing the review on how well the ZET predicts the presence or absence of chemical-induced prenatal developmental toxicity observed in mammalian studies. An interdisciplinary team prepared a systematic review protocol and adjusted it throughout this piloting phase, where needed. The final protocol was registered and will guide the main study (systematic review), which will execute the protocol to comprehensively answer the review question. The goal of this preparatory study was to translate systematic review methodology to the assessment of toxicological test method performance. Consequently, it focused on the methodological issues encountered, whereas the main study will report substantive findings. These relate to numerous systematic review steps, but primarily to searching and selecting the evidence. Applying the lessons learned to these challenges can improve not only our main study, but may also be helpful to others seeking to use systematic review methodology to compare toxicological test methods. We conclude with a series of recommendations that, if adopted, would help improve the quality of the published literature, and make conducting systematic reviews of toxicological studies faster and easier over time.

Indexed as

malformationsprenatal developmental toxicitysystematic reviewtest method comparisonzebrafish embryotoxicity test

Identifiers

PMID31192353
PMCPMC6736188

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.