Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31254867›Full record

ArticleEnvironment international2019

Systematic evidence maps as a novel tool to support evidence-based decision-making in chemicals policy and risk management.

Taylor A M Wolffe, Paul Whaley, Crispin Halsall, Andrew A Rooney, Vickie R Walker

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environment international, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 8 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

52 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Article
  10. Visualization of Multi-indication Randomized Control Trial Evidence to Support Decision Making in Oncology: A Case Study on Bevacizumab.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

5 authors.

Taylor A M WolffeLancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK; Yordas Group, Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK. Electronic address: t.wolffe@lancaster.ac.uk.
Paul WhaleyLancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK; Evidence-Based Toxicology Collaboration, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.
Crispin HalsallLancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
Andrew A RooneyDivision of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Vickie R WalkerDivision of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.

Funding

Intramural NIH HHS Z99 ES999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile systematic review (SR) methods are gaining traction as a method for providing a reliable summary of existing evidence for health risks posed by exposure to chemical substances, it is becoming clear that their value is restricted to a specific range of risk management scenarios - in particular, those which can be addressed with tightly focused questions and can accommodate the time and resource requirements of a systematic evidence synthesis.

methodsThe concept of a systematic evidence map (SEM) is defined and contrasted to the function and limitations of systematic review (SR) in the context of risk management decision-making. The potential for SEMs to facilitate evidence-based decision-making are explored using a hypothetical example in risk management priority-setting. The potential role of SEMs in reference to broader risk management workflows is characterised.

resultsSEMs are databases of systematically gathered research which characterise broad features of the evidence base. Although not intended to substitute for the evidence synthesis element of systematic reviews, SEMs provide a comprehensive, queryable summary of a large body of policy relevant research. They provide an evidence-based approach to characterising the extent of available evidence and support forward looking predictions or trendspotting in the chemical risk sciences. In particular, SEMs facilitate the identification of related bodies of decision critical chemical risk information which could be further analysed using SR methods, and highlight gaps in the evidence which could be addressed with additional primary studies to reduce uncertainties in decision-making.

conclusionsSEMs have strong and growing potential as a high value tool in resource efficient use of existing research in chemical risk management. They can be used as a critical precursor to efficient deployment of high quality SR methods for characterising chemical health risks. Furthermore, SEMs have potential, at a large scale, to support the sort of evidence summarisation and surveillance methods which would greatly increase the resource efficiency, transparency and effectiveness of regulatory initiatives such as EU REACH and US TSCA.

Indexed as

Decision MakingRisk AssessmentHazardous SubstancesHumansPublic PolicyResearch DesignHazardous SubstancesEvidence mappingSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID31254867
PMCPMC7189619

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.