Correction to: Syst Rev 11, 53 (2022)
In the original publication of this article [1], the new reference citation has been included in the body text repeatedly and not added as an endnote.
Further, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine have recently published a report on the Hanbook, Review of U.S. EPA’s ORD Staff Handbook for Developing IRIS Assessments: 2020 Version (2021) (cite National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2021. Review of U.S.EPA’s ORD Staff Handbook for Developing IRIS Assessments: 2020 Version. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26289) that also acknowledged this progress but also found that the Handbook and IRIS assessments could be improved in several areas, including the ROB approach.
Our concerns with this approach were highlighted in the NASEM report on the Handbook (cite National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2021. Review of U.S.EPA’s ORD Staff Handbook for Developing IRIS Assessments: 2020 Version. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26289), where it was stated that " EPA provided data from recent IRIS assessments showing that the proportion of human studies rated as “uninformative” and excluded from further consideration ranged from 0 to 50 percent, and 0 to 41.5 percent for animal studies.
The corrected citations are shown below and the original article has been corrected.
Further, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [NASEM] have recently published a report on the Handbook, Review of U.S. EPA’s ORD Staff Handbook for Developing IRIS Assessments: 2020 Version [3] that also acknowledged this progress but also found that the Handbook and IRIS assessments could be improved in several areas, including the ROB approach.
Our concerns with this approach were highlighted in the NASEM report on the Handbook [3], where it was stated that "EPA provided data from recent IRIS assessments showing that the proportion of human studies rated as “uninformative” and excluded from further consideration ranged from 0 to 50 percent, and 0 to 41.5 percent for animal studies. Thus, depending on the IRIS assessment, excluding studies at the study evaluation stage could lead to a substantial proportion of excluded studies due to a critically deficient rating in one domain."
References
Eick SM, Goin DE, Lam J, et al. Authors’ rebuttal to Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) response to “Assessing risk of bias in human environmental epidemiology studies using three tools: different conclusions from different tools”. Syst Rev. 2022;11:53. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-022-01894-8.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Review of U.S. EPA's ORD Staff Handbook for Developing IRIS Assessments: 2020 Version. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2022. https://doi.org/10.17226/26289.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
About this article
Cite this article
Eick, S.M., Goin, D.E., Lam, J. et al. Correction: Authors’ rebuttal to Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) response to “Assessing risk of bias in human environmental epidemiology studies using three tools: different conclusions from different tools”. Syst Rev 11, 86 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-022-01967-8
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-022-01967-8