Cited by 214Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances researchMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsToxic Organic Pollutants Impact

The Navigation Guide—Evidence-Based Medicine Meets Environmental Health: Integration of Animal and Human Evidence for PFOA Effects on Fetal Growth

Open access
Lam, Juleen, Koustas, Erica, Sutton, Patrice, Johnson, Paula I., Atchley, Dylan S., Sen, Saunak, Robinson, Karen A., Axelrad, Daniel A. +1 more·2014·Environmental Health Perspectives

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Navigation Guide is a novel systematic review method to synthesize scientific evidence and reach strength of evidence conclusions for environmental health decision making. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to integrate scientific findings from human and nonhuman studies to determine the overall strength of evidence for the question "Does developmental exposure to perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) affect fetal growth in humans?" METHODS: We developed and applied prespecified criteria to systematically and transparently a) rate the quality of the scientific evidence as "high," "moderate," or "low"; b) rate the strength of the human and nonhuman evidence separately as "sufficient," "limited," "moderate," or "evidence of lack of toxicity"; and c) integrate the strength of the human and nonhuman evidence ratings into a strength of the evidence conclusion. RESULTS: We identified 18 epidemiology studies and 21 animal toxicology studies relevant to our study question. We rated both the human and nonhuman mammalian evidence as "moderate" quality and "sufficient" strength. Integration of these evidence ratings produced a final strength of evidence rating in which review authors concluded that PFOA is "known to be toxic" to human reproduction and development based on sufficient evidence of decreased fetal growth in both human and nonhuman mammalian species. CONCLUSION: We concluded that developmental exposure to PFOA adversely affects human health based on sufficient evidence of decreased fetal growth in both human and nonhuman mammalian species. The results of this case study demonstrate the application of a systematic and transparent methodology, via the Navigation Guide, for reaching strength of evidence conclusions in environmental health.

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 · 10.1289/ehp.1307923

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Altman DG, eds. 2011 Chapter 9: Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 5.1.0 (Higgins JPT, Green S, eds). Available: http://www.cochrane-handbook.org [accessed 15 April 2013]
  2. Fox DM. 2010 The Convergence of Science and Governance: Research, Health Policy, and American States Berkeley, CA University of California Press
  3. Institute of Medicine. 2007 Preterm Birth: Causes, Consequences, and Prevention. Washington, DC:National Academies Press. Available: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11622 [accessed 8 September 2014] 20669423
  4. NRC (National Research Council). 2009 Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment. Washington, DC:National Academies Press. Available: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12209 [accessed 8 September 2014] 25009905
  5. NRC (National Research Council). 2011 Review of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Draft IRIS Assessment of Formaldehyde. Washington, DC:National Academies Press. Available: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13142 [accessed 8 September 2014] 25032397
  6. NRC (National Research Council). 2014 Review of EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Process. Washington, DC:National Academies Press. Available: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18764 [accessed 8 September 2014] 25101400
  7. Viswanathan M, Ansari M, Berkman N, Chang S, Hartling L, McPheeters L, et al. 2012 Assessing the risk of bias of individual studies in systematic reviews of health care interventions. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Methods Guide for Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. AHRQ Publication No. 12-EHC047-EF. Available: http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/ehc/products/322/998/MethodsGuideforCERs_Viswanathan_IndividualStudies.pdf [accessed 8 September 2014] 22479713

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lam, J., Koustas, E., Sutton, P., Johnson, P. I., Atchley, D. S., Sen, S., Robinson, K. A., Axelrad, D. A., & Woodruff, T. J.
Affiliations
  • Environmental Protection Agency (US)
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author
Lam, Juleen
Venue
Environmental Health Perspectives
Published
2014-06-25
Volume
122
Issue
10
Pages
1040-1051
ISSN
  • 0091-6765 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-9924
OpenAlex
W1987523543
Cited by
214
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 6
FWCI
2.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Environmental Health Perspectives (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Energy
  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (RD-83543301)
  • New York Community Trust
  • Heinz Endowments
  • Johnson Family Foundation
  • Rose Foundation for Communities and the Environment
  • Kaiser Permanente
  • Environmental Defense Fund
  • Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education
  • U.S. Public Health Service (ESO22841)
  • University of California, San Francisco
  • National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (ESO22841, ES018135, P01ES022841, P20ES018135)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances research
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Toxic Organic Pollutants Impact
Keywords
perfluorooctanoic acid, fetal growth, early life exposure, quality of evidence, veterinary toxicology, human epidemiology, evidence integration, perfluorinated compounds, reproductive toxicity
MeSH terms
Animals, Birth Weight, Caprylates, Environmental Health, Environmental Pollutants, Female, Fluorocarbons, Humans, Pregnancy, Maternal Exposure, Evidence-Based Medicine, Fetal Development

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