↓ Skip to main content

A proposed framework for the systematic review and integrated assessment (SYRINA) of endocrine disrupting chemicals

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Health, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
11 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
98 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
151 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A proposed framework for the systematic review and integrated assessment (SYRINA) of endocrine disrupting chemicals
Published in
Environmental Health, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12940-016-0156-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laura N. Vandenberg, Marlene Ågerstrand, Anna Beronius, Claire Beausoleil, Åke Bergman, Lisa A. Bero, Carl-Gustaf Bornehag, C. Scott Boyer, Glinda S. Cooper, Ian Cotgreave, David Gee, Philippe Grandjean, Kathryn Z. Guyton, Ulla Hass, Jerrold J. Heindel, Susan Jobling, Karen A. Kidd, Andreas Kortenkamp, Malcolm R. Macleod, Olwenn V. Martin, Ulf Norinder, Martin Scheringer, Kristina A. Thayer, Jorma Toppari, Paul Whaley, Tracey J. Woodruff, Christina Rudén

Abstract

The issue of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) is receiving wide attention from both the scientific and regulatory communities. Recent analyses of the EDC literature have been criticized for failing to use transparent and objective approaches to draw conclusions about the strength of evidence linking EDC exposures to adverse health or environmental outcomes. Systematic review methodologies are ideal for addressing this issue as they provide transparent and consistent approaches to study selection and evaluation. Objective methods are needed for integrating the multiple streams of evidence (epidemiology, wildlife, laboratory animal, in vitro, and in silico data) that are relevant in assessing EDCs. We have developed a framework for the systematic review and integrated assessment (SYRINA) of EDC studies. The framework was designed for use with the International Program on Chemical Safety (IPCS) and World Health Organization (WHO) definition of an EDC, which requires appraisal of evidence regarding 1) association between exposure and an adverse effect, 2) association between exposure and endocrine disrupting activity, and 3) a plausible link between the adverse effect and the endocrine disrupting activity. Building from existing methodologies for evaluating and synthesizing evidence, the SYRINA framework includes seven steps: 1) Formulate the problem; 2) Develop the review protocol; 3) Identify relevant evidence; 4) Evaluate evidence from individual studies; 5) Summarize and evaluate each stream of evidence; 6) Integrate evidence across all streams; 7) Draw conclusions, make recommendations, and evaluate uncertainties. The proposed method is tailored to the IPCS/WHO definition of an EDC but offers flexibility for use in the context of other definitions of EDCs. When using the SYRINA framework, the overall objective is to provide the evidence base needed to support decision making, including any action to avoid/minimise potential adverse effects of exposures. This framework allows for the evaluation and synthesis of evidence from multiple evidence streams. Finally, a decision regarding regulatory action is not only dependent on the strength of evidence, but also the consequences of action/inaction, e.g. limited or weak evidence may be sufficient to justify action if consequences are serious or irreversible.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 151 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Unknown 148 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 25 17%
Student > Master 21 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 10%
Other 10 7%
Student > Bachelor 10 7%
Other 33 22%
Unknown 37 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 29 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 5%
Engineering 7 5%
Other 39 26%
Unknown 49 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 40. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 August 2018.
All research outputs
#1,009,895
of 25,149,126 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Health
#233
of 1,589 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,285
of 364,142 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Health
#4
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,149,126 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,589 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 37.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 364,142 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.