CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 91

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Recommendations for the conduct of systematic reviews in toxicology and environmental health research (COSTER)

Whaley, Paul, Aiassa, Elisa, Beausoleil, Claire, Beronius, Anna, Bilotta, Gary, Boobis, Alan, de Vries, Rob, Hanberg, Annika, Hoffmann, Sebastian, Hunt, Neil, Kwiatkowski, Carol F., Lam, Juleen, Lipworth, Steven, Martin, Olwenn, Randall, Nicola, Rhomberg, Lorenz, Rooney, Andrew A., Schünemann, Holger J., Wikoff, Daniele, Wolffe, Taylor, Halsall, Crispin·2020·Environment International
DOI 10.1016/j.envint.2020.105926
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.envint.2020.105926

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 41

  1. Arzuaga, Xabier, Smith, Martyn T., Gibbons, Catherine F., Skakkebæk, Niels E., Yost, Erin E., Beverly, Brandiese E.J., et al., 2019. Proposed Key Characteristics of Male Reproductive Toxicants as an Approach for Organizing and Evaluating Mechanistic Evidence in Human Health Hazard Assessments. Environ. Health Perspect. 127(6), 65001. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP5045. · DOI
  2. Chambers, 2019, What's next for Registered Reports?, Nature, 573, 187, 10.1038/d41586-019-02674-6 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Descatha, Alexis, Sembajwe, Grace, Baer, Michael, Boccuni, Fabio, Di Tecco, Cristina, Duret, Clément, et al., 2018. WHO/ILO work-related burden of disease and injury: Protocol for systematic reviews of exposure to long working hours and of the effect of exposure to long working hours on stroke. Environ. Int. 119, 366–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.06.016. · DOI
  4. Eden, Jill, Levit, Laura A., Berg, Alfred O., Morton, Sally C., 2011. Finding what works in health care. Standards for systematic reviews. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. · DOI · Paper page
  5. EFSA, 2010, Application of systematic review methodology to food and feed safety assessments to support decision making, EFSA J., 8, 1637
  6. EFSA, 2015, Principles and process for dealing with data and evidence in scientific assessments, EFSA J., 13, 4121
  7. Farrah, 2019, Risk of bias tools in systematic reviews of health interventions: an analysis of PROSPERO-registered protocols, Syst. Rev., 8, 280, 10.1186/s13643-019-1172-8 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Guyatt, 2011, GRADE guidelines: a new series of articles in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, J. Clin. Epidemiol., 64, 380, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.09.011 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Haddaway, 2019, Predicting the time needed for environmental systematic reviews and systematic maps, Conserv. Biol. J. Soc. Conserv. Biol., 33, 434, 10.1111/cobi.13231 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Hansen, 2019, Exposure to neuroactive non-organochlorine insecticides, and diabetes mellitus and related metabolic disturbances: Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis, Environ. Int., 127, 664, 10.1016/j.envint.2019.02.074 · DOI
  11. Higgins, Julian P. T., Altman, Douglas G., Gøtzsche, Peter C., Jüni, Peter, Moher, David, Oxman, Andrew D., et al., 2011. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 343, d5928. · DOI · Paper page
  12. International Committee of Medical Journal Editor, 2013. ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Available online at http://www.icmje.org/conflicts-of-interest/ (checked on 1/3/2018).
  13. Johnson, 2016, Application of the Navigation Guide systematic review methodology to the evidence for developmental and reproductive toxicity of triclosan, Environ. Int., 92–93, 716, 10.1016/j.envint.2016.03.009 · DOI
  14. Krauth, 2013, Instruments for assessing risk of bias and other methodological criteria of published animal studies: a systematic review, Environ. Health Perspect., 121, 985, 10.1289/ehp.1206389 · DOI
  15. Li, 2018, WHO/ILO work-related burden of disease and injury: Protocol for systematic reviews of exposure to long working hours and of the effect of exposure to long working hours on ischaemic heart disease, Environ. Int., 119, 558, 10.1016/j.envint.2018.06.022 · DOI
  16. Luderer, 2019, Proposed Key Characteristics of Female Reproductive Toxicants as an Approach for Organizing and Evaluating Mechanistic Data in Hazard Assessment, Environ. Health Perspect., 127, 75001, 10.1289/EHP4971 · DOI
  17. Mandrioli, 2018, WHO/ILO work-related burden of disease and injury: Protocol for systematic reviews of occupational exposure to dusts and/or fibres and of the effect of occupational exposure to dusts and/or fibres on pneumoconiosis, Environ. Int., 119, 174, 10.1016/j.envint.2018.06.005 · DOI
  18. Martin, O.V., Bopp, S., Ermler, S., Kienzler, A., McPhie, J., Paini, A., et al., 2018. Protocol For A Systematic Review Of Ten Years Of Research On Interactions In Chemical Mixtures Of Environmental Pollutants.
  19. Matta, Komodo, Ploteau, Stéphane, Coumoul, Xavier, Koual, Meriem, Le Bizec, Bruno, Antignac, Jean-Philippe, Cano-Sancho, German, 2019. Associations between exposure to organochlorine chemicals and endometriosis in experimental studies: A systematic review protocol. Environ. Int. 124, 400–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.12.063. · DOI
  20. Morgan, 2019, GRADE guidelines for environmental and occupational health: A new series of articles in Environment International, Environ. Int., 128, 11, 10.1016/j.envint.2019.04.016 · DOI
  21. Morgan, 2016, GRADE: Assessing the quality of evidence in environmental and occupational health, Environ. Int., 92–93, 611, 10.1016/j.envint.2016.01.004 · DOI
  22. Morgan, 2018, Identifying the PECO: A framework for formulating good questions to explore the association of environmental and other exposures with health outcomes, Environ. Int., 121, 1027, 10.1016/j.envint.2018.07.015 · DOI · Paper page
  23. NAS, 2014. Review of EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Process. Washington (DC).
  24. NAS, 2017. Application of Systematic Review Methods in an Overall Strategy for Evaluating Low-Dose Toxicity from Endocrine Active Chemicals. Washington (DC).
  25. Paez, 2017, Grey literature: An important resource in systematic reviews, J. Evid.-Based Med., 10.1111/jebm.12266 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Phung, Dung, Des Connell, Rutherford, Shannon, Chu, Cordia, 2017. Cardiovascular risk from water arsenic exposure in Vietnam: Application of systematic review and meta-regression analysis in chemical health risk assessment. Chemosphere 177, 167–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.03.012. · DOI
  27. Quansah, Reginald, Semple, Sean, Ochieng, Caroline A., Juvekar, Sanjar, Armah, Frederick Ato, Luginaah, Isaac, Emina, Jacques, 2017. Effectiveness of interventions to reduce household air pollution and/or improve health in homes using solid fuel in low-and-middle income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Environ. Int. 103, 73–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2017.03.010. · DOI
  28. Radke, 2018, Phthalate exposure and male reproductive outcomes: A systematic review of the human epidemiological evidence, Environ. Int., 121, 764, 10.1016/j.envint.2018.07.029 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Radke, 2019, Phthalate exposure and metabolic effects: a systematic review of the human epidemiological evidence, Environ. Int., 132, 10.1016/j.envint.2019.04.040 · DOI
  30. Rooney, 2014, Systematic review and evidence integration for literature-based environmental health science assessments, Environ. Health Perspect., 122, 711, 10.1289/ehp.1307972 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Rooney, 2016, How credible are the study results? Evaluating and applying internal validity tools to literature-based assessments of environmental health hazards, Environ. Int., 92–93, 617, 10.1016/j.envint.2016.01.005 · DOI
  32. Schaefer, 2017, Guidelines for performing systematic reviews in the development of toxicity factors, Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. RTP, 91, 124, 10.1016/j.yrtph.2017.10.008 · DOI
  33. Singla, 2019, The Environmental Protection Agency Toxic Substances Control Act Systematic Review Method May Curtail Science Used to Inform Policies, With Profound Implications for Public Health, Am. J. Public Health, 109, 982, 10.2105/AJPH.2019.305068 · DOI
  34. Smith, 2016, Key Characteristics of Carcinogens as a Basis for Organizing Data on Mechanisms of Carcinogenesis, Environ. Health Perspect., 124, 713, 10.1289/ehp.1509912 · DOI
  35. Stephens, 2016, The Emergence of Systematic Review in Toxicology, Toxicol. Sci., 152, 10, 10.1093/toxsci/kfw059 · DOI
  36. Vandenberg, 2016, A proposed framework for the systematic review and integrated assessment (SYRINA) of endocrine disrupting chemicals, Environ. Health Glob. Access Sci. Source, 15, 74
  37. Villeneuve, 2014, Adverse outcome pathway (AOP) development I: strategies and principles, Toxicol. Sci. Off. J. Soc. Toxicol., 142, 312, 10.1093/toxsci/kfu199 · DOI
  38. Villeneuve, 2014, Adverse outcome pathway development II: best practices, Toxicol. Sci. Off. J. Soc. Toxicol., 142, 321, 10.1093/toxsci/kfu200 · DOI
  39. Vries, R. B. M. de, Hooijmans, Carlijn R., Langendam, Miranda W., van Luijk, Judith, Leenaars, Marlies, Ritskes-Hoitinga, Merel, Wever, Kimberley E., 2015. A protocol format for the preparation, registration and publication of systematic reviews of animal intervention studies. Evid.-based Preclin. Med. 2(1), e00007. https://doi.org/10.1002/ebm2.7. · DOI
  40. Wang, Zhicheng, Taylor, Kyla, Allman-Farinelli, Margaret, Armstrong, Bruce, Askie, Lisa, Ghersi, Davina, et al., 2019. A systematic review: Tools for assessing methodological quality of human observational studies. · DOI
  41. Whaley, 2016, Implementing systematic review techniques in chemical risk assessment: Challenges, opportunities and recommendations, Environ. Int., 92–93, 556, 10.1016/j.envint.2015.11.002 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 91

Metadata

Authors
Whaley, P., Aiassa, E., Beausoleil, C., Beronius, A., Bilotta, G., Boobis, A., de Vries, R., Hanberg, A., Hoffmann, S., Hunt, N., Kwiatkowski, C. F., Lam, J., Lipworth, S., Martin, O., Randall, N., Rhomberg, L., Rooney, A. A., Schünemann, H. J., Wikoff, D., Wolffe, T., & Halsall, C.
ORCID
Whaley, Paul
Venue
Environment International
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-10
Volume
143
Pages
105926
ISSN
0160-4120
DOI
10.1016/j.envint.2020.105926
Cited by
91
References
9
Language
en
Licence
Funders
  • Economic and Social Research Council
  • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review