You are here:
Using study evaluation to inform evidence integration: Application in a systematic review of hexavalent chromium male reproductive outcomes
Citation:
Yost, E., X. Arzuaga Andino, A. Sasso, AND C. Gibbons. Using study evaluation to inform evidence integration: Application in a systematic review of hexavalent chromium male reproductive outcomes. Society of Toxicology 59th Annual Meeting and ToxExpo, Anaheim, California, March 15 - 19, 2020.
Impact/Purpose:
This poster will demonstrate how study evaluations can be used to explain inconsistencies in results across studies and inform evidence integration in systematic review.
Description:
Study evaluation is used in systematic reviews to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence base in a consistent and transparent manner. This can be used to inform evidence integration by identifying factors that may affect the reliability and interpretability of the results. Here, we describe how this principle was applied in a systematic review of the male reproductive effects of hexavalent chromium [Cr(VI)]. A literature search identified 23 animal toxicology studies that examined effects of Cr(VI) exposure on the male reproductive system. These studies were evaluated by at least two independent reviewers for reporting quality, risk of bias, and sensitivity using a domain-based approach, and were rated as high confidence, medium confidence, low confidence, or uninformative. Of these, eight were considered uninformative due to serious flaws and were excluded. Four studies had no notable concerns and were considered high confidence, and eleven had significant concerns across multiple study evaluation domains and were considered low confidence. Whereas the high confidence studies found that the male reproductive system appeared unaffected by Cr(VI) exposure, the low confidence studies found a range of effects including decreased sperm quality and quantity and altered hormone levels. It was concluded that the evidence for Cr(VI)-induced male reproductive effects in animal models was slight, as the reliability of the observed effects was compromised by risk of bias and sensitivity concerns. The views expressed in this abstract are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.