Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Reviews in Endocrine and Metabolic Disorders
Erschienen in: Reviews in Endocrine and Metabolic Disorders 4/2015

01.12.2015

Using systematic reviews for hazard and risk assessment of endocrine disrupting chemicals

verfasst von: Anna Beronius, Laura N. Vandenberg

Erschienen in: Reviews in Endocrine and Metabolic Disorders | Ausgabe 4/2015

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

The possibility that endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) in our environment contribute to hormonally related effects and diseases observed in human and wildlife populations has caused concern among decision makers and researchers alike. EDCs challenge principles traditionally applied in chemical risk assessment and the identification and assessment of these compounds has been a much debated topic during the last decade. State of the science reports and risk assessments of potential EDCs have been criticized for not using systematic and transparent approaches in the evaluation of evidence. In the fields of medicine and health care, systematic review methodologies have been developed and used to enable objectivity and transparency in the evaluation of scientific evidence for decision making. Lately, such approaches have also been promoted for use in the environmental health sciences and risk assessment of chemicals. Systematic review approaches could provide a tool for improving the evaluation of evidence for decision making regarding EDCs, e.g. by enabling systematic and transparent use of academic research data in this process. In this review we discuss the advantages and challenges of applying systematic review methodology in the identification and assessment of EDCs.
Literatur
1.
2.
3.
4.
Kavlock RJ, Daston GP, DeRosa C, Fenner-Crisp P, Gray LE, Kaattari S, et al. Research needs for the risk assessment of health and environmental effects of endocrine disruptors: a report of the U.S. EPA-sponsored workshop. Environ Health Perspect. 1996;104(Supp 4):715–40.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
5.
Myers JP, Zoeller RT, FS v S. A clash of old and new scientific concepts in toxicity, with important implications for public health. Environ Health Perspect. 2009;117(11):1652–5.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
6.
Molander L, Ruden C. Narrow-and-sharp or broad-and-blunt–regulations of hazardous chemicals in consumer products in the European Union. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2012;62(3):523–31.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Bergman A, Heindel JJ, Kasten T, Kidd KA, Jobling S, Neira M, et al. The impact of endocrine disruption: a consensus statement on the state of the science. Environ Health Perspect. 2013;121(4):A104–6.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
8.
9.
10.
Gore AC, Chappell VA, Fenton SE, Flaws JA, Nadal A, Prins GS, et al. EDC-2: the endocrine society's second scientific statement on endocrine-disrupting chemicals. Endocr Rev. 2015;36(6):E1–150.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Diamanti-Kandarakis E, Bourguignon JP, Guidice LC, Hauser R, Prins GS, Soto AM, et al. Endocrine-disrupting chemical: an endocrine society scientific statement. Endocr Rev. 2009;30:293–342.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
12.
Gore AC, Chappell VA, Fenton SE, Flaws JA, Nadal A, Prins GS, et al. Executive summary to EDC-2: the endocrine society's second scientific statement on endocrine-disrupting chemicals. Endocr Rev. 2015;36(6):593–602.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Kortenkamp A, Martin O, Faust M, Evans R, McKinlay R, Orton F, et al. State of the Art Assessment of Endocrine Disruptors, Final Report. Brussels: European Commission; 2011. p. 442.
14.
Zoeller RT, Brown TR, Doan LL, Gore AC, Skakkebaek NE, Soto AM, et al. Endocrine-disrupting chemicals and public health protection: a statement of principles from the endocrine society. Endocrinology. 2012;153(9):4097–110.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
15.
Vandenberg LN, Colborn T, Hayes TB, Heindel JJ, Jr. Jacobs DR, Lee DH, et al. Hormones and endocrine-disrupting chemicals: low-dose effects and nonmonotonic dose responses. Endocr Rev. 2012;33(3):378–455.
16.
US EPA. State of the science evaluation: nonmonotonic dose responses as they apply to estrogen, androgen, and thyroid pathways and EPA testing and assessment procedures. 2013.
17.
Rhomberg LR, Goodman JE, Foster WG, Borgert CJ, Van Der Kraak G. A critique of the European commission document, "state of the art assessment of endocrine disrupters". Crit Rev Toxicol. 2012;42(6):465–73.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
18.
Kortenkamp A, Martin O, Evans R, Orton F, McKinlay R, Rosivatz E, et al. Response to a critique of the European commission document, "state of the art assessment of endocrine disrupters" by rhomberg and colleagues–letter to the editor. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2012;42(9):787–9 author reply 90-1.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Dietrich DR, Aulock SV, Marquardt H, Blaauboer B, Dekant W, Kehrer J, et al. Scientifically unfounded precaution drives European commission's recommendations on EDC regulation, while defying common sense, well-established science and risk assessment principles. Chem Biol Interact. 2013;205(1):A1–5.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Gore AC, Balthazart J, Bikle D, Carpenter DO, Crews D, Czernichow P, et al. Policy decisions on endocrine disruptors should be based on science across disciplines: a response to Dietrich et al. Endocrinology. 2013;154(11):3957–60.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Bergman A, Andersson AM, Becher G, van den Berg M, Blumberg B, Bjerregaard P, et al. Science and policy on endocrine disrupters must not be mixed: a reply to a "common sense" intervention by toxicology journal editors. Environ Heal. 2013;12:69.CrossRef
22.
Zoeller RT, Bergman A, Becher G, Bjerregaard P, Bornman R, Brandt I, et al. A path forward in the debate over health impacts of endocrine disrupting chemicals. Environ Heal. 2014;13(1):118.CrossRef
23.
Lamb JC, Boffetta P, Foster WG, Goodman JE, Hentz KL, Rhomberg LR, et al. Critical comments on the WHO-UNEP state of the science of endocrine disrupting chemicals - 2012. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2014;69(1):22–40.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Bergman A, Becher G, Blumberg B, Bjerregaard P, Bornman R, Brandt I, et al. Manufacturing doubt about endocrine disrupter science - a rebuttal of industry-sponsored critical comments on the UNEP/WHO report "state of the science of endocrine disrupting chemicals 2012". Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2015;73(3):1007–17.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Lamb JC, Boffetta P, Foster WG, Goodman JE, Hentz KL, Rhomberg LR, et al. Comments on the opinions published by bergman et al. (2015) on critical comments on the WHO-UNEP state of the science of endocrine disrupting chemicals (lamb et al. 2014). Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2015;73(3):754–7.PubMedCrossRef
26.
27.
28.
Rhomberg LR, Goodman JE. Low-dose effects and nonmonotonic dose-responses of endocrine disrupting chemicals: has the case been made? Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2012;64(1):130–3.PubMedCrossRef
29.
30.
Weed DL. Weight of evidence: a review of concepts and methods. Risk Anal. 2005;25(6):1545–57.PubMedCrossRef
31.
32.
EFSA. Guidance of EFSA Application of systematic review methodology to food and feed safety assessments to support decision making. EFSA J. 2010;8:90.
33.
34.
35.
Silbergeld E, Scherer RW. Evidence-based toxicology: strait is the gate, but the road is worth taking. ALTEX. 2013;30(1):67–73.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Tyl RW. In honor of the teratology society's 50th anniversary: the role of teratology society members in the development and evolution of in vivo developmental toxicity test guidelines. Birth Defects Res (Part C). 2010;90:99–102.CrossRef
37.
Tyl RW. Basic exploratory research versus guideline-compliant studies used for hazard evaluation and risk assessment: bisphenol a as a case study. Environ Health Perspect. 2009;117(111):1644–51.PubMedPubMedCentral
38.
39.
Schug TT, Abagyan R, Blumberg B, Collins TJ, Crews D, DeFur PL, et al. Designing endocrine disruption out of the next generation of chemicals. Green Chem. 2013;15:181–98.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
40.
Myers JP, FS v S, BT A, Arizono K, Belcher S, Colborn T, et al. Why public health agencies cannot depend upon 'good laboratory practices' as a criterion for selecting data: the case of bisphenol-a. Environ Health Perspect. 2009;117(3):309–15.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
41.
Vandenberg LN, Colborn T, Hayes TB, Heindel JJ, Jacobs DR, Lee DH, et al. Regulatory decisions on endocrine disrupting chemicals should be based on the principles of endocrinology. Reprod Toxicol. 2013;38C:1–15.CrossRef
42.
FS v S, BT A, SM B, LS B, DA C, Eriksen M, et al. Chapel hill bisphenol A expert panel consensus statement: integration of mechanisms, effects in animals and potential to impact human health at current levels of exposure. Reprod Toxicol. 2007;24(2):131–8.CrossRef
43.
FS v S, JP M. Good laboratory practices are not synonymous with good scientific practices, accurate reporting, or valid data. Environ Health Perspect. 2010;118(2):A60.
44.
Gore AC. Editorial: an international riposte to naysayers of endocrine-disrupting chemicals. Endocrinology. 2013;154(11):3955–6.PubMedCrossRef
45.
Gore AC, Heindel JJ, Zoeller RT. Endocrine disruption for endocrinologists (and others). Endocrinology. 2006;147(Suppl 6):S1–3.PubMedCrossRef
46.
Kanno J, Onyon L, Haseman J, Fenner-Crisp P, Ashby J, Owens W. The OECD program to validate the rat uterotrophic bioassay to screen compounds for in vivo estrogenic responses: phase 1. Environ Health Perspect. 2001;109:785–94.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
47.
Kanno J, Onyon L, Peddada S, Ashby J, Jacob E, Owens W. The OECD Program to validate the rat uterotrophic bioassay. Phase 2: coded single-dose studies. Environ Health Perspect. 2003;111(12):1550–8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
48.
Kanno J, Onyon L, Peddada S, Ashby J, Jacob E, Owens W. The OECD Program to validate the rat uterotrophic bioassay. Phase 2: dose-response studies. Environ Health Perspect. 2003;111(12):1530–49.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
49.
Birnbaum LS, Bucher JR, Collman GW, Zeldin DC, Johnson AF, Schug TT, et al. Consortium-based science: the NIEHS's multipronged, collaborative approach to assessing the health effects of bisphenol a. Environ Health Perspect. 2012;120(12):1640–4.PubMedPubMedCentral
50.
51.
Catanese MC, Suvorov A, Vandenberg LN. Beyond a means of exposure: a new view of the mother in toxicology research. Toxicol Res. 2015;4:592–612.CrossRef
52.
Slovic P, Malmfors T, Mertz CK, Neil N, Purchase IFH. Evaluating chemical risks: results of a survey of the British toxicology society. Hum Exp Toxicol. 1997;16(6):289–304.PubMedCrossRef
53.
Krimsky S The weight of scientific evidence in policy and law. Am J Public Health. 2005;95(Suppl 1):S129–36.PubMedCrossRef
54.
Linkov I, Loney D, Cormier S, Satterstrom FK, Bridges T. Weight-of-evidence evaluation in environmental assessment: review of qualitative and quantitative approaches. Sci Total Environ. 2009;407:5199–205.PubMedCrossRef
55.
Doull J, Rozman KK, Lowe MC. Hazard evaluation in risk assessment: whatever happened to sound scientific judgment and weight of evidence? Drug Metab Rev. 1996;28(1–2):285–99.PubMedCrossRef
56.
Woodruff TJ, Zeise L, Axelrad DA, Guyton KZ, Janssen S, Miller M, et al. Meeting report: moving upstream-evaluating adverse upstream end points for improved risk assessment and decision-making. Environ Health Perspect. 2008;116(11):1568–75.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
57.
Alcock RE, Macgillivray BH, Busby JS. Understanding the mismatch between the demands of risk assessment and practice of scientists–the case of deca-BDE. Environ Int. 2011;37(1):216–25.PubMedCrossRef
58.
EFSA. Opinion of the scientific panel on food additives, flavourings, processing aids and materials in contact with food (AFC) related to 2,2-BIS(4-HYDROXYPHENYL)PROPANE. The EFSA Journal. 2006;428:1–75.
59.
Hengstler JG, Foth H, Gebel T, Kramer PJ, Lilienblum W, Schweinfurth H, et al. Critical evaluation of key evidence on the human health hazards of exposure to bisphenol a. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2011;41(4):263–91.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
60.
61.
Lewis RW. Risk assessment of 'endocrine substances': guidance on identifying endocrine disruptors. Toxicol Lett. 2013;223(3):287–90.PubMedCrossRef
62.
Chen CW. Assessment of endocrine disruptors: approaches, issues, and uncertainties. Folia Histochem Cytobiol. 2001;39(Suppl 2):20–3.PubMed
63.
EFSA. Use of the benchmark dose approach in risk assessment. EFSA J. 2009;1150:1–72.
64.
65.
66.
Slob W Thresholds in toxicology and risk assessment. Int J Toxicol. 1999;18:259–68.CrossRef
67.
Rajapakse N, Silva E, Kortenkamp A. Combining xenoestrogens at levels below individual no-observed-effect concentrations dramatically enhances steroid hormone activity. Environ Health Perspect. 2002;110:917–21.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
68.
Welshons WV, Thayer KA, Judy BM, Taylor JA, Curran EM, FS v S. Large effects from small exposures: I. Mechanisms for endocrine-disrupting chemicals with estrogenic activity. Environ Health Perspect. 2003;111:994–1006.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
69.
Ryan BC, Vandenbergh JG. Intrauterine position effects. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2002;26:665–78.PubMedCrossRef
70.
Heindel JJ, Balbus J, Birnbaum L, Brune-Drisse MN, Grandjean P, Gray K, et al. Developmental origins of health and disease: integrating environmental influences. Endocrinology. 2015;156(10):3416–21.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
71.
Silbergeld EK, Flaws JA, Brown KM. Organizational and activational effects of estrogenic endocrine disrupting chemicals. Cad Saude Publica. 2002;18(2):495–504.PubMedCrossRef
72.
Wallen K The organizational hypothesis: reflections on the 50th anniversary of the publication of phoenix, Goy, gerall, and young (1959). Horm Behav. 2009;55(5):561–5.PubMedCrossRef
73.
Purchase IF, Auton TR. Thresholds in chemical carcinogenesis. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 1995;22(3):199–205.PubMedCrossRef
74.
Neumann HG. Risk assessment of chemical carcinogens and thresholds. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2009;39(6):449–61.PubMedCrossRef
75.
Calafat AM, Ye X, Silva MJ, Kuklenyik Z, Needham LL. Human exposure assessment to environmental chemicals using biomonitoring. Int J Androl. 2006;29(1):166–71 discussion 81-5.PubMedCrossRef
76.
Needham LL, Calafat AM, Barr DB. Assessing developmental toxicant exposures via biomonitoring. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2008;102:100–8.PubMedCrossRef
77.
Woodruff TJ, Zota AR, Schwartz JM. Environmental chemicals in pregnant women in the United States: NHANES 2003-2004. Environ Health Perspect. 2011;119(6):878–85.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
78.
Munn S, Heindel J. Assessing the risk of exposures to endocrine disrupting chemicals. Chemosphere. 2013;93(6):845–6.PubMedCrossRef
79.
Beausoleil C, Ormsby JN, Gies A, Hass U, Heindel JJ, Holmer ML, et al. Low dose effects and non-monotonic dose responses for endocrine active chemicals: science to practice workshop: workshop summary. Chemosphere. 2013;93(6):847–56.PubMedCrossRef
80.
Melnick R, Lucier G, Wolfe M, Hall R, Stancel G, Prins G, et al. Summary of the national toxicology program's report of the endocrine disruptors low-dose peer review. Environ Health Perspect. 2002;110(4):427–31.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
81.
Swan SH, Sathyanarayana S, Barrett ES, Janssen S, Liu F, Nguyen RH, et al. First trimester phthalate exposure and anogenital distance in newborns. Hum Reprod. 2015;30(4):963–72.PubMedCrossRef
82.
Barrett ES, Parlett LE, Wang C, Drobnis EZ, Redmon JB, Swan SH. Environmental exposure to di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate is associated with low interest in sexual activity in premenopausal women. Horm Behav. 2014;66(5):787–92.PubMedCrossRef
83.
Lam T, Williams PL, Lee MM, Korrick SA, Birnbaum LS, Burns JS, et al. Prepubertal serum concentrations of organochlorine pesticides and age at sexual maturity in Russian boys. Environ Health Perspect. 2015;123(11):1216–21.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
84.
Braun JM, Chen A, Romano ME, Calafat AM, Webster GM, Yolton K, et al. Prenatal perfluoroalkyl substance exposure and child adiposity at 8 years of age: the HOME study. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2016;24(1):231–7.CrossRef
85.
Webster GM, Rauch SA, Ste Marie N, Mattman A, Lanphear BP, SA V. Cross-Sectional Associations of Serum Perfluoroalkyl Acids and Thyroid Hormones in U.S. Adults: Variation According to TPOAb and Iodine Status (NHANES 2007-2008). Environ Health Perspect. 2015. doi:10.​1289/​ehp.​1409589.
86.
Engel SM, Bradman A, Wolff MS, Rauh VA, Harley KG, Yang JH, et al. Prenatal organophosphorus pesticide exposure and child neurodevelopment at 24 months: an analysis of four birth cohorts. Environ Health Perspect. 2015. doi:10.​1289/​ehp.​1409474.
87.
Werner EF, Braun JM, Yolton K, Khoury JC, Lanphear BP. The association between maternal urinary phthalate concentrations and blood pressure in pregnancy: the HOME study. Environ Heal. 2015;14:75.CrossRef
88.
Vandenberg LN, Ehrlich S, Belcher SM, Ben-Jonathan N, Dolinoy DC, Hugo ER, et al. Low dose effects of bisphenol a: an integrated review of in vitro, laboratory animal and epidemiology studies. Endocrine Disruptors. 2013;1(1):e25078.CrossRef
89.
90.
Acevedo N, Davis B, Schaeberle CM, Sonnenschein C, Soto AM. Perinatally administered bisphenol a as a potential mammary gland carcinogen in rats. Environ Health Perspect. 2013;121(9):1040–6.PubMedPubMedCentral
91.
Cabaton NJ, Wadia PR, Rubin BS, Zalko D, Schaeberle CM, Askenase MH, et al. Perinatal exposure to environmentally relevant levels of bisphenol a decreases fertility and fecundity in CD-1 mice. Environ Health Perspect. 2011;119(4):547–52.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
92.
McLachlan JA, Newbold RR, Shah HC, Hogan MD, Dixon RL. Reduced fertility in female mice exposed transplacentally to diethylstilbestrol (DES). Fertil Steril. 1982;38:364–71.PubMed
93.
Hunt PA, Koehler KE, Susiarjo M, Hodges CA, Ilagan A, Voigt RC, et al. Bisphenol A exposure causes meiotic aneuploidy in the female mouse. Curr Biol. 2003;13(7):546–53.PubMedCrossRef
94.
Prins GS, Ye SH, Birch L, Ho SM, Kannan K. Serum bisphenol a pharmacokinetics and prostate neoplastic responses following oral and subcutaneous exposures in neonatal Sprague-Dawley rats. Reprod Toxicol. 2011;31(1):1–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
95.
96.
Lamartiniere CA, Jenkins S, Betancourt AM, Wang J, Russo J. Exposure to the endocrine disruptor bisphenol a alters susceptibility for mammary cancer. Horm Mol Biol Clin Investig. 2011;5(2):45–52.PubMedPubMedCentral
97.
White SS, Stanko JP, Kato K, Calafat AM, Hines EP, Fenton SE. Gestational and chronic low-dose PFOA exposures and mammary gland growth and differentiation in three generations of CD-1 mice. Environ Health Perspect. 2011;119(8):1070–6.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
98.
Vandenberg LN, Maffini MV, Schaeberle CM, Ucci AA, Sonnenschein C, Rubin BS, et al. Perinatal exposure to the xenoestrogen bisphenol-a induces mammary intraductal hyperplasias in adult CD-1 mice. Reprod Toxicol. 2008;26:210–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
99.
Sharpe RM, Rivas A, Walker M, McKinnell C, Fisher JS. Effect of neonatal treatment of rats with potent or weak (environmental) oestrogens, or with a GnRH antagonist, on leydig cell development and function through puberty into adulthood. Int J Androl. 2003;26(1):26–36.PubMedCrossRef
100.
Do RP, Stahlhut RW, Ponzi D, Vom Saal FS, Taylor JA. Non-monotonic dose effects of in utero exposure to di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) on testicular and serum testosterone and anogenital distance in male mouse fetuses. Reprod Toxicol. 2012;34(4):614–21.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
101.
Zoeller RT, Bansal R, Parris C. Bisphenol-a, an environmental contaminant that acts as a thyroid hormone receptor antagonist in vitro, increases serum thyroxine, and alters RC3/neurogranin expression in the developing rat brain. Endocrinology. 2005;146:607–12.PubMedCrossRef
102.
Richter CA, Taylor JA, Ruhlen RL, Welshons WV, FS v S. Estradiol and bisphenol a stimulate androgen receptor and estrogen receptor gene expression in fetal mouse prostate mesenchyme cells. Environ Health Perspect. 2007;115(6):902–8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
103.
Gore AC, Walker DM, Zama AM, Armenti AE, Uzumcu M. Early life exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals causes lifelong molecular reprogramming of the hypothalamus and premature reproductive aging. Mol Endocrinol. 2011;25(12):2157–68.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
104.
Patisaul HB, Sullivan AW, Radford ME, Walker DM, Adewale HB, Winnik B, et al. Anxiogenic effects of developmental bisphenol a exposure are associated with gene expression changes in the juvenile rat amygdala and mitigated by soy. PLoS One. 2012;7(9):e43890.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
105.
Rubin BS, Lenkowski JR, Schaeberle CM, Vandenberg LN, Ronsheim PM, Soto AM. Evidence of altered brain sexual differentiation in mice exposed perinatally to low, environmentally relevant levels of bisphenol a. Endocrinology. 2006;147(8):3681–91.PubMedCrossRef
106.
Palanza P, Morellini F, Parmigiani S, FS v S. Ethological methods to study the effects of maternal exposure to estrogenic endocrine disrupters: a study with methoxychlor. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 2002;24(1):55–69.PubMedCrossRef
107.
Palanza P, Parmigiani S, Liu H, FS v S. Prenatal exposure to low doses of the estrogenic chemicals diethylstilbestrol and o,p'-DDT alters aggressive behavior of male and female house mice. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1999;64(4):665–72.PubMedCrossRef
108.
Palanza P, Parmigiani S, FS v S. Effects of prenatal exposure to low doses of diethylstilbestrol, o,p'DDT, and methoxychlor on postnatal growth and neurobehavioral development in male and female mice. Horm Behav. 2001;40:252–65.PubMedCrossRef
109.
Steinberg RM, Juenger TE, Gore AC. The effects of prenatal PCBs on adult female paced mating reproductive behaviors in rats. Horm Behav. 2007;51(3):364–72.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
110.
111.
Ankley GT, Bennett RS, Erickson RJ, Hoff DJ, Hornung MW, Johnson RD, et al. Adverse outcome pathways: a conceptual framework to support ecotoxicology research and risk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2010;29(3):730–41.PubMedCrossRef
112.
Gee D Late lessons from early warnings: toward realism and precaution with endocrine-disrupting substances. Environ Health Perspect. 2006;114(Suppl 1):152–60.PubMedPubMedCentral
113.
Vandenberg LN, Bowler AG. Non-monotonic dose responses in EDSP tier 1 guideline assays. Endocrine Disruptors. 2014;2(1):e964530.CrossRef
114.
Zoeller RT, Vandenberg LN. Assessing dose-response relationships for endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs): a focus on non-monotonicity. Environ Heal. 2015;14(1):42.CrossRef
115.
Vandenberg LN. Low-dose effects of hormones and endocrine disruptors. Vitam Horm. 2014;94:129–65.PubMedCrossRef
116.
Vandenberg LN. Non-monotonic dose responses in studies of endocrine disrupting chemicals: bisphenol a as a case study. Dose-Response. 2013;12(2):259–76.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
117.
118.
FS v S, BT A, SM B, DA C, Crews D, LC G, et al. Flawed experimental design reveals the need for guidelines requiring appropriate positive controls in endocrine disruption research. Toxicol Sci. 2010;115(2):612–3.CrossRef
119.
Phoenix CH, Goy RW, Gerall AA, Young WC. Organizing action of prenatally administered testosterone propionate on the tissues mediating mating behavior in the female guinea pig. Endocrinology. 1959;65:369–82.PubMedCrossRef
120.
Heindel JJ, Vandenberg LN. Developmental origins of health and disease: a paradigm for understanding disease etiology and prevention. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2015;27(2):248–53.PubMedCrossRef
121.
Heindel JJ. Role of exposure to environmental chemicals in the developmental basis of reproductive disease and dysfunction. Semin Reprod Med. 2006;24(3):168–77.PubMedCrossRef
122.
Matthews SJ, McCoy C. Thalidomide: a review of approved and investigational uses. Clin Ther. 2003;25(2):342–95.PubMedCrossRef
123.
Vargesson N Thalidomide-induced limb defects: resolving a 50-year-old puzzle. BioEssays. 2009;31(12):1327–36.PubMedCrossRef
124.
Ruegg J, Penttinen-Damdimopoulou P, Makela S, Pongratz I, Gustafsson JA. Receptors mediating toxicity and their involvement in endocrine disruption. EXS. 2009;99:289–323.PubMed
125.
Ellis-Hutchings RG, Rasoulpour RJ, Terry C, Carney EW, Billington R. Human relevance framework evaluation of a novel rat developmental toxicity mode of action induced by sulfoxaflor. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2014;44(Suppl 2):45–62.PubMedCrossRef
126.
Tian J, Feng Y, Fu H, Xie HQ, Jiang JX, Zhao B. The aryl hydrocarbon receptor: a key bridging molecule of external and internal chemical signals. Environ Sci Technol. 2015;49(16):9518–31.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
127.
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336(7650):924–6.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
128.
129.
Eden J, Levit L, Berg A, Morton S. Finding out what works in health care. Institute of Medicine of the National Academies: Standards for Systematic Reviews; 2011.
130.
Agerstrand M, Beronius A. Weight of Evidence evaluation and Systematic Review in EU chemical risk assessment: Foundation is laid but guidance is needed. Environment International. 2015.
131.
US EPA. Framework for human health risk assessment to inform decision making, 2014.
132.
Birnbaum LS, Thayer KA, Bucher JR, Wolfe MS. Implementing systematic review at the national toxicology program: status and next steps. Environ Health Perspect. 2013;121(4):A108–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
133.
Rooney AA, Boyles AL, Wolfe MS, Bucher JR, Thayer KA. Systematic review and evidence integration for literature-based environmental health science assessments. Environ Health Perspect. 2014;122(7):711–8.PubMedPubMedCentral
134.
Woodruff TJ, Sutton P. An evidence-based medicine methodology to bridge the gap between clinical and environmental health sciences. Health Aff. 2011;30(5):931–7.CrossRef
135.
Beronius A, Molander L, Ruden C, Hanberg A. Facilitating the use of non-standard in vivo studies in health risk assessment of chemicals: a proposal to improve evaluation criteria and reporting. J Appl Toxicol. 2014;34(6):607–17.PubMedCrossRef
136.
Kilkenny C, Browne WJ, Cuthill IC, Emerson M, Altman DG. Improving bioscience research reporting: the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol. 2010;8(6):e1000412.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
137.
Landis SC, Amara SG, Asadullah K, Austin CP, Blumenstein R, Bradley EW, et al. A call for transparent reporting to optimize the predictive value of preclinical research. Nature. 2012;490(7419):187–91.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
138.
Agerstrand M, Breitholtz M, Ruden C. Comparison of four different methods for reliability evaluation of ecotoxicity data: a case study of non-standard test data used in environmental risk assessment of pharmaceutical substances. Environ Sci Eur. 2011;23:17.CrossRef
139.
Klimisch HJ, Andreae M, Tillmann U. A systematic approach for evaluating the quality of experimental toxicological and ecotoxicological data. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 1997;25(1):1–5.PubMedCrossRef
140.
Hunt PA, Vandevoort CA, Woodruff T, Gerona R. Invalid controls undermine conclusions of FDA studies. Toxicol Sci. 2014;141(1):1–2.PubMedCrossRef
141.
Schneider K, Schwarz M, Burkholder I, Kopp-Schneider A, Edler L, Kinsner-Ovaskainen A, et al. "ToxRTool", a new tool to assess the reliability of toxicological data. Toxicol Lett. 2009;189(2):138–44.PubMedCrossRef
142.
Molander L, Agerstrand M, Beronius A, Hanberg A, Ruden C. Science in risk assessment and policy (SciRAP) – an online resource for evaluating and reporting in vivo (Eco) toxicity studies. Hum Ecol Risk Assess. 2015;21:753–62.CrossRef
143.
Hayes TB. Atrazine has been used safely for 50 years? In: JE E, CA B, CA M, editors. Wildlife Ecotoxicology: Forensic Approaches. editors ed. New York, NY: Spring Science + Business Media, LLC; 2011. p. 301–24.CrossRef
144.
Ruhlen RL, Taylor JA, Mao J, Kirkpatrick J, Welshons WV, FS v S. Choice of animal feed can alter fetal steroid levels and mask developmental effects of endocrine disrupting chemicals. J Develop Origins Health Disease. 2011:1–13.
145.
FS v S, Hughes C. An extensive new literature concerning low-dose effects of bisphenol A shows the need for a new risk assessment. Environ Health Perspect. 2005;113:926–33.CrossRef
146.
FS v S, CA R, RR R, SC N, BG T, WV W. The importance of appropriate controls, animal feed, and animal models in interpreting results from low-dose studies of bisphenol. A Birth Defects Res (Part A). 2005;73:140–5.CrossRef
147.
FS v S, WV W. Large effects from small exposures. II. The importance of positive controls in low-dose research on bisphenol. A Environmental Research. 2006;100:50–76.CrossRef
148.
Mesnage R, Defarge N, Rocque LM. Spiroux de vendomois J, seralini GE. Laboratory rodent diets contain toxic levels of environmental contaminants: implications for regulatory tests. PLoS One. 2015;10(7):e0128429.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
149.
Vandenberg LN, Welshons WV, Vom Saal FS, Toutain PL, Myers JP. Should oral gavage be abandoned in toxicity testing of endocrine disruptors? Environ Heal. 2014;13(1):46.CrossRef
150.
Vandenberg LN, Catanese MC. Casting a wide net for endocrine disruptors. Chem Biol. 2014;21(6):705–6.PubMedCrossRef
151.
FS v S, SC N, BG T, WV W. Implications for human health of the extensive bisphenol a literature showing adverse effects at low doses: a response to attempts to mislead the public. Toxicology. 2005;212(2–3):244–52 author reply 53-4.
152.
Damstra T, Barlow S, Bergman A. In: Kavlock RJ, van der Kraak G, editors. Global assessment of the state-of-the-science of endocrine disruptors. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2002.
153.
WHO. State of the science of endocrine disrupting chemicals - 2012. An assessment of the state of the science of endocrine disruptors prepared by a group of experts for the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and WHO. 2013.
154.
Dechanet C, Anahory T, Mathieu Daude JC, Quantin X, Reyftmann L, Hamamah S, et al. Effects of cigarette smoking on reproduction. Hum Reprod Update. 2011;17(1):76–95.PubMedCrossRef
155.
Oppeneer SJ, Robien K. Bisphenol A exposure and associations with obesity among adults: a critical review. Public Health Nutr. 2014;1-17.
156.
Kuo CC, Moon K, Thayer KA, Navas-Acien A. Environmental chemicals and type 2 diabetes: an updated systematic review of the epidemiologic evidence. Current Diabetes rEports. 2013;13(6):831–49.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
157.
Goodman M, Mandel JS, DeSesso JM, Scialli AR. Atrazine and pregnancy outcomes: a systematic review of epidemiologic evidence. Birth Defects Res B Dev Reprod Toxicol. 2014;101(3):215–36.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
158.
Salay E, Garabrant D. Polychlorinated biphenyls and thyroid hormones in adults: a systematic review appraisal of epidemiological studies. Chemosphere. 2009;74(11):1413–9.PubMedCrossRef
159.
Johnson PI, Sutton P, Atchley DS, Koustas E, Lam J, Sen S, et al. The navigation guide-evidence-based medicine meets environmental health: systematic review of human evidence for PFOA effects on fetal growth. Environ Health Perspect. 2014;122(10):1028–39.PubMedPubMedCentral
160.
Koustas E, Lam J, Sutton P, Johnson PI, Atchley DS, Sen S, et al. The navigation guide-evidence-based medicine meets environmental health: systematic review of nonhuman evidence for PFOA effects on fetal growth. Environ Health Perspect. 2014;122(10):1015–27.PubMedPubMedCentral
161.
Trasande L, Zoeller RT, Hass U, Kortenkamp A, Grandjean P, Myers JP, et al. Estimating burden and disease costs of exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the European Union. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015;100(4):1245–55.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
162.
163.
164.
165.
Metadaten
Titel
Using systematic reviews for hazard and risk assessment of endocrine disrupting chemicals
verfasst von
Anna Beronius
Laura N. Vandenberg
Publikationsdatum
01.12.2015
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Reviews in Endocrine and Metabolic Disorders / Ausgabe 4/2015
Print ISSN: 1389-9155
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2606
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11154-016-9334-7

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2015

Reviews in Endocrine and Metabolic Disorders 4/2015 Zur Ausgabe

EditorialNotes

Introduction to Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals – is it time to act?

ReviewPaper

Environmental endocrine disruptors: Effects on the human male reproductive system

ReviewPaper

Thyroid nodules and thyroid autoimmunity in the context of environmental pollution

ReviewPaper

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs)

ReviewPaper

Bisphenol A: Targeting metabolic tissues

ReviewPaper

Methodological issues in human studies of endocrine disrupting chemicals

Leitlinien kompakt für die Innere Medizin

Mit medbee Pocketcards sicher entscheiden.

Seit 2022 gehört die medbee GmbH zum Springer Medizin Verlag

Kostenlos registrieren

Neu im Fachgebiet Innere Medizin

Reizdarmsyndrom: Diäten wirksamer als Medikamente

29.04.2024 Reizdarmsyndrom Nachrichten

Bei Reizdarmsyndrom scheinen Diäten, wie etwa die FODMAP-arme oder die kohlenhydratreduzierte Ernährung, effektiver als eine medikamentöse Therapie zu sein. Das hat eine Studie aus Schweden ergeben, die die drei Therapieoptionen im direkten Vergleich analysierte.

Notfall-TEP der Hüfte ist auch bei 90-Jährigen machbar

26.04.2024 Hüft-TEP Nachrichten

Ob bei einer Notfalloperation nach Schenkelhalsfraktur eine Hemiarthroplastik oder eine totale Endoprothese (TEP) eingebaut wird, sollte nicht allein vom Alter der Patientinnen und Patienten abhängen. Auch über 90-Jährige können von der TEP profitieren.

Niedriger diastolischer Blutdruck erhöht Risiko für schwere kardiovaskuläre Komplikationen

25.04.2024 Hypotonie Nachrichten

Wenn unter einer medikamentösen Hochdrucktherapie der diastolische Blutdruck in den Keller geht, steigt das Risiko für schwere kardiovaskuläre Ereignisse: Darauf deutet eine Sekundäranalyse der SPRINT-Studie hin.

Bei schweren Reaktionen auf Insektenstiche empfiehlt sich eine spezifische Immuntherapie

25.04.2024 Allergien und Intoleranzreaktionen Nachrichten

Insektenstiche sind bei Erwachsenen die häufigsten Auslöser einer Anaphylaxie. Einen wirksamen Schutz vor schweren anaphylaktischen Reaktionen bietet die allergenspezifische Immuntherapie. Jedoch kommt sie noch viel zu selten zum Einsatz.

Update Innere Medizin

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen
Bildnachweise