Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36325881›Full record

ReviewIntegrated environmental assessment and management2024

Key challenges and developments in wildlife ecological risk assessment: Problem formulation.

Bradley E Sample, Mark S Johnson, Ruth N Hull, Lawrence Kapustka, Wayne G Landis, Cheryl A Murphy, Mary Sorensen, Gary Mann, Kurt A Gust, David B Mayfield and 2 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Integrated environmental assessment and management, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

12 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Bradley E SampleEcological Risk Inc., Rancho Murieta, California, USA.
Mark S JohnsonUS Army Public Health Center, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, USA.
Ruth N HullGary D. Williams & Associates Inc., Campbellville, Ontario, Canada.
Lawrence KapustkaLK Consultancy, Turner Valley, Alberta, Canada.
Wayne G LandisWestern Washington University, Bellingham, Washington, USA.
Cheryl A MurphyMichigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA.
Mary SorensenRamboll US Consulting, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Gary MannAzimuth Consulting Group Inc., Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Kurt A GustResearch Development and Engineering Center, Engineer Research and Development Center, US Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, Mississippi, USA.
David B MayfieldLabcorp, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Jan-Dieter LudwigsRifcon, Hirschberg, Germany.
Wayne R MunnsUSEPA, Narragansett, Rhode Island, USA.
Environmental Protection Agency · USLabCorp (United States) · USMichigan State University · USU.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine · USU.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center · USWestern Washington University · USWilliams & Associates · US

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Problem formulation (PF) is a critical initial step in planning risk assessments for chemical exposures to wildlife, used either explicitly or implicitly in various jurisdictions to include registration of new pesticides, evaluation of new and existing chemicals released to the environment, and characterization of impact when chemical releases have occurred. Despite improvements in our understanding of the environment, ecology, and biological sciences, few risk assessments have used this information to enhance their value and predictive capabilities. In addition to advances in organism-level mechanisms and methods, there have been substantive developments that focus on population- and systems-level processes. Although most of the advances have been recognized as being state-of-the-science for two decades or more, there is scant evidence that they have been incorporated into wildlife risk assessment or risk assessment in general. In this article, we identify opportunities to consider elevating the relevance of wildlife risk assessments by focusing on elements of the PF stage of risk assessment, especially in the construction of conceptual models and selection of assessment endpoints that target population- and system-level endpoints. Doing so will remain consistent with four established steps of existing guidance: (1) establish clear protection goals early in the process; (2) consider how data collection using new methods will affect decisions, given all possibilities, and develop a decision plan a priori; (3) engage all relevant stakeholders in creating a robust, holistic conceptual model that incorporates plausible stressors that could affect the targets defined in the protection goals; and (4) embrace the need for iteration throughout the PF steps (recognizing that multiple passes may be required before agreeing on a feasible plan for the rest of the risk assessment). Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024;20:658-673. © 2022 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC). This article has been contributed to by U.S. Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.

Indexed as

Animals, WildPesticidesAnimalsEcotoxicologyHumansResearch DesignRisk AssessmentPesticidesEmerging scienceProblem formulationRisk assessmentWildlife

Identifiers

PMID36325881
PMCPMC10656671
OpenAlexW4308056793

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.