You are here:
How to Conduct Systematic Reviews and Rapid Systematic Reviews
Citation:
Arzuaga, X. How to Conduct Systematic Reviews and Rapid Systematic Reviews. Society of Toxicology, San Diego, CA, March 27 - 31, 2022.
Impact/Purpose:
Besides traditional, narrative reviews, other review types are increasingly being used in toxicology and recognized for their strengths. For instance, systematic review has joined the narrative review on the short list in the hasten publication type filter on PubMed. Systematic reviews, a format originating from the clinical research field, offer balanced answers to predefined questions with transparent steps and comprehensive consideration of diverse, including conflicting, results. They are considered the gold standard in many agencies for hazard identification and/or risk assessment of carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic effects from chemical, physical, and biological agents, mixtures, lifestyles, and other scenarios. Evidence map (survey the available research evidence), scoping review (evidence map with a descriptive narrative summary of the results, typically without data extraction or study quality assessment), rapid systematic review (faster completion than a systematic review with or without review shortcuts), umbrella review, and mixed type of review each can fit different needs while requiring fewer resources than a systematic review. This course is designed for toxicologists at all stages of their careers and will explain the review types, how to know which type is right for your question and situation, how to complete selected types of the review, and how to publish them, including interim products, in peer-reviewed journals. Many early steps in the process are highly similar among these highlighted review types, and participants will be able to build knowledge and know-how by following the presentations in the designed order. At the end of the course, the participants will be able to (1) distinguish different types of reviews; (2) prepare an evidence map, scoping review, rapid systematic review, or systematic review that fits their needs; (3) use computational tools to simplify and fasten the process; and (4) write a competitive manuscript to amplify the impact of their work.
Description:
Hazard evaluation of chemical-induced toxicity involves the analysis of toxicological, epidemiological and mechanistic evidence. The eight key characteristics (KCs) of male reproductive toxicants provide a tool for identifying and organizing evidence across mechanistic studies. The goal of this presentation is to provide an overview of a case study using the KCs of male reproductive toxicants to screen, organize, and evaluate mechanistic evidence on benzo[a]pyrene (B[a]P)-induced male reproductive toxicity. A literature search was performed, relevant studies which met pre-defined criteria were screened, and a literature inventory was constructed using the eight KCs of male reproductive toxicants. The 2,172 studies identified were screened using SWIFT-ACTIVE Screener and DistillerSR, resulting in 64 in vitro and in vivo studies that met inclusion criteria. A literature inventory was developed to extract mechanistic and toxicological evidence from the identified studies and to facilitate the review process. Analysis of the available evidence for each KC led to the identification of potential pathways associated with B[a]P-induced male reproductive toxicity at the molecular cellular, organ and organism level. This case study demonstrates that the KCs approach serves as a transparent and efficient tool to identify, organize, and evaluate mechanistic studies, and to facilitate the analysis of biological plausibility and human relevance of the available evidence. Disclaimer: The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views or policies of the US EPA