You are here:
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) response to “Assessing risk of bias in human environmental epidemiology studies using three tools: different conclusions from different tools”
Citation:
Radke-Farabaugh, E., B. Glenn, AND A. Kraft. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) response to “Assessing risk of bias in human environmental epidemiology studies using three tools: different conclusions from different tools”. Systematic Reviews. BioMed Central Ltd, London, Uk, 10:235, (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01783-6
Impact/Purpose:
This response to “Assessing risk of bias in human environmental epidemiology studies using three tools: different conclusions from different tools” by Eick et al. (2020) addresses important misrepresentations of the IRIS approach to study evaluation.
Description:
“Assessing risk of bias in human environmental epidemiology studies using three tools: different conclusions from different tools” by Eick et al. (2020) applied the study evaluation approach developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), as well as other approaches, to a set of studies examining polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) and neurodevelopment. They concluded that use of the IRIS approach resulted in exclusion of studies, which would lead to hazard conclusions based on an incomplete body of evidence. As scientists in the IRIS program, we support the comparison of approaches to improve systematic review methods for environmental exposures. However, we believe the IRIS approach was misrepresented, so we would like to clarify several points about its use.
URLs/Downloads:
DOI: Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) response to “Assessing risk of bias in human environmental epidemiology studies using three tools: different conclusions from different tools”