Cross-mapping of terms used in chemical risk assessment with those used in systematic review: research protocol

Figures & data

Figure 1. Overview of the three phases and the timeline for the cross-mapping between core systematic review and core chemical risk assessment terms. CRA, chemical risk assessment; SR, systematic review.

Table 1. The document collection for identification of core SR and CRA terms.

Document	References
SEVCO (Scientific Evidence Code System)	FEvIR Platform Version 0.80.0 (06.12.2022)
Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews	Institute of Medicine Committee on Standards for Systematic Reviews of Comparative Effectiveness (2011)
JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis	Aromataris and Munn (2020)
Application of systematic review methodology to food and feed safety assessments to support decision making	EFSA (2010)
Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Interventions Reviews (MECIR)	Higgins et al. (2023)
Glossary of Terms in The Cochrane Collaboration, Version 4.2.5	Cochrane Collaboration (2005)
Handbook for Conducting a Literature Based Health Assessment Using OHAT Approach for Systematic Review and Evidence Integration	NTP OHAT (2019)
Framework for the use of systematic review in chemical risk assessment	WHO (2021)
Guiding Principles and Key Elements for Establishing a Weight of Evidence for Chemical Assessment	OECD (2019)
ORD Staff Handbook for Developing IRIS Assessments	EPA (2022)
Guidance on the assessment of the biological relevance of data in scientific assessments	Hardy et al. (2017b)
PRISMA 2020	Page et al. (2021)
EFSA glossary	EFSA (2024)

Table 2. The four main steps in the cross-mapping process.

Step	What
1. Identification of relationships between core CRA terms and core SR terms	PG will map which terms are related
2. Assembling an expert group with PG members, SAG members, and additional experts, all self-identifying as having relevant SR and/or CRA expertise	The relationship between terms is discussed in the expert group. Descriptions of the relationships between the terms will be drafted according to the discussion
3. Identification of agreement on discussed descriptions (approval of the draft statements from step 2)	The experts vote (anonymously, online) “agree” or “not agree” on approval of the draft statement from step 2 The criteria for agreement are: i) at least 5 members voted AND ii) all votes were for “agree” If an agreement is reached, stop here If no agreement is reached, proceed to step 4
4. Suggestion of changes to the descriptions where no agreement was reached	The result of the vote is discussed in the expert group and redrafted when needed. Participants will vote (online) “agree” or “not agree” on each discussed statement. The criteria for agreement for descriptions of relationships between the terms that are discussed for the second time are: i) at least five members voted AND ii) at least 80% of the votes were for “agree” If an agreement is reached, stop here If no agreement is reached, proceed to step 3 Steps 3 and 4 are repeated a maximum of two times. If agreement is not reached, no statement of the relationship between the CRA and the SR terms will be created. However, information on the difficulties and suggested descriptions will be included as supplementary materials

Aromataris E., Munn Z. Editors. 2020. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI, 2020. https://synthesismanual.jbi.global. https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-20-01, https://jbi-global-wiki.refined.site/space/MANUAL/4685874/Downloadable+PDF+-+current+version?attachment=/rest/api/content/4685874/child/attachment/att4691824/download&type=application/pdf&filename=JBIMES_2021April.

 Google Scholar

EFSA. 2010. “Application of Systematic Review Methodology to Food and Feed Safety Assessments to Support Decision Making.” EFSA Journal 8: 1637. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1637

 Google Scholar

Higgins, J., T. Lasserso, J. Thomas, E. Flemyng, and R. Churchill. 2023. Standards for the conduct of New Cochrane Intervention Reviews, and the Planning and Conduct of Updates. Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR). MECIR Manual (Version August 2023) Cochrane Community. https://community.cochrane.org/book_pdf/545.

 Google Scholar

Cochrane Collaboration. 2005. Glossary of Terms in The Cochrane Collaboration, Version 4.2.5 http://aaz.hr/resources/pages/57/7.%20Cochrane%20glossary.pdf.

 Google Scholar

NTP OHAT. 2019. Handbook for Conducting a Literature Based Health Assessment Using OHAT Approach for Systematic Review and Evidence Integration. Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT), Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/ohat/pubs/handbookmarch2019_508.pdf.

 Google Scholar

WHO. 2021. Framework for the Use of Systematic Review in Chemical Risk Assessment. Geneva: World Health Organization. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO, https://apps.who.int/iris/rest/bitstreams/1387316/retrieve.

 Google Scholar

OECD. 2019. Guiding Principles and Key Elements for Establishing a Weight of Evidence for Chemical Assessment, Series on Testing and Assessment No. 311, Environment, Health and Safety Division, Environment Directorate, The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. https://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/risk-assessment/guiding-principles-and-key-elements-for-establishing-a-weight-of-evidence-for-chemical-assessment.pdf.

 Google Scholar

EPA. 2022. ORD Staff Handbook for Developing IRIS Assessments. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development, EPA/600/R-22/268. https://ordspub.epa.gov/ords/eims/eimscomm.getfile?p_download_id=545991.

 Google Scholar

Hardy, A., D. Benford, T. Halldorsson, M. J. Jeger, H. K. Knutsen, S. More, H. Naegeli, EFSA., et al. 2017b. “Guidance on the Assessment of the Biological Relevance of Data in Scientific Assessments.” EFSA Journal. European Food Safety Authority 15 (8): e04970. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2017.4970

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Page, M. J., J. E. McKenzie, P. M. Bossuyt, I. Boutron, T. C. Hoffmann, C. D. Mulrow, L. Shamseer, et al. 2021. “The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews.” BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) 372: n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

EFSA. 2024. Glossary, European Food Safety Authority. https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/glossary-taxonomy-terms.

 Google Scholar