Using systematic reviews and meta-analyses to support regulatory decision making for neurotoxicants: lessons learned from a case study of PCBs

We examined prospective cohort studies evaluating the relation between prenatal and neonatal exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and neurodevelopment in children to assess the feasibility of conducting a meta-analysis to support decision making. We described studies in terms of exposure and...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Ciência & saude coletiva 2011-07, Vol.16 (7), p.3207-3220
Hauptverfasser: Goodman, Michael, Squibb, Katherine, Youngstrom, Eric, Anthony, Laura Gutermuth, Kenworthy, Lauren, Lipkin, Paul H, Mattison, Donald R, LaKind, Judy S
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:We examined prospective cohort studies evaluating the relation between prenatal and neonatal exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and neurodevelopment in children to assess the feasibility of conducting a meta-analysis to support decision making. We described studies in terms of exposure and end point categorization, statistical analysis, and reporting of results. We used this evaluation to assess the feasibility of grouping studies into reasonably uniform categories. The most consistently used tests included Brazelton's Neonatal Behavioral Assessment Scale, the neurologic optimality score in the neonatal period, the Bayley Scales of Infant Development at 5-8 months of age, and the McCarthy Scales of Children's Abilities in 5-year-olds. Despite administering the same tests at similar ages, the studies were too dissimilar to allow a meaningful quantitative examination of outcomes across cohorts. These analyses indicate that our ability to conduct weight-of-evidence assessments of the epidemiologic literature on neurotoxicants may be limited, even in the presence of multiple studies, if the available study methods, data analysis, and reporting lack comparability.
ISSN:1413-8123
1678-4561
1678-4561
1413-8123
DOI:10.1590/S1413-81232011000800020