Reviews in environmental health: How systematic are they?

BACKGROUND: Synthesizing environmental health science is crucial to taking action to protect public health. Procedures for evidence evaluation and integration are transitioning from "expert-based narrative" to "systematic" review methods. However, little is known about the methodology being utilized for either type of review. OBJECTIVES: To appraise the methodological strengths and weaknesses of a sample of "expert-based narrative" and "systematic" reviews in environmental health. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of multiple databases and identified relevant reviews using pre-specified eligibility criteria. We applied a modified version of the Literature Review Appraisal Toolkit (LRAT) to three environmental health topics that assessed the utility, validity and transparency of reviews. RESULTS: We identified 29 reviews published between 2003 and 2019, of which 13 (45%) were self-identified as systematic reviews. Across every LRAT domain, systematic reviews received a higher percentage of "satisfactory" ratings compared to non-systematic reviews. In eight of these domains, there was a statistically significant difference observed between the two types of reviews and "satisfactory" ratings. Non-systematic reviews performed poorly with the majority receiving an "unsatisfactory" or "unclear" rating in 11 of the 12 domains. Systematic reviews performed poorly in six of the 12 domains; 10 (77%) did not state the reviews objectives or develop a protocol; eight (62%) did not state the roles and contribution of the authors, or evaluate the internal validity of the included evidence consistently using a valid method; and only seven (54%) stated a pre-defined definition of the evidence bar on which their conclusions were based, or had an author disclosure of interest statement. DISCUSSION: Systematic reviews produced more useful, valid, and transparent conclusions compared to non-systematic reviews, but poorly conducted systematic reviews were prevalent. Ongoing development and implementation of empirically based systematic review methods are required in environmental health to ensure transparent and timely decision making to protect the public's health.

Exposure to formaldehyde and asthma outcomes: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and economic assessment.

BACKGROUND: Every major federal regulation in the United States requires an economic analysis estimating its benefits and costs. Benefit-cost analyses related to regulations on formaldehyde exposure have not included asthma in part due to lack of clarity in the strength of the evidence. OBJECTIVES: 1) To conduct a systematic review of evidence regarding human exposure to formaldehyde and diagnosis, signs, symptoms, exacerbations, or other measures of asthma in humans; and 2) quantify the annual economic benefit for decreases in formaldehyde exposure. METHODS: We developed and registered a protocol in PROSPERO (Record ID #38766, CRD 42016038766). We conducted a comprehensive search of articles published up to April 1, 2020. We evaluated potential risk of bias for included studies, identified a subset of studies to combine in a meta-analysis, and rated the overall quality and strength of the evidence. We quantified economics benefit to children from a decrease in formaldehyde exposure using assumptions consistent with EPA's proposed formaldehyde rule. RESULTS: We screened 4,821 total references and identified 150 human studies that met inclusion criteria; of these, we focused on 90 studies reporting asthma status of all participants with quantified measures of formaldehyde directly relevant to our study question. Ten studies were combinable in a meta-analysis for childhood asthma diagnosis and five combinable for exacerbation of childhood asthma (wheezing and shortness of breath). Studies had low to probably-low risk of bias across most domains. A 10-µg/m3 increase in formaldehyde exposure was associated with increased childhood asthma diagnosis (OR = 1.20, 95% CI: [1.02, 1.41]). We also found a positive association with exacerbation of childhood asthma (OR = 1.08, 95% CI: [0.92, 1.28]). The overall quality and strength of the evidence was rated as "moderate" quality and "sufficient" for asthma diagnosis and asthma symptom exacerbation in both children and adults. We estimated that EPA's proposed rule on pressed wood products would result in 2,805 fewer asthma cases and total economic benefit of $210 million annually. CONCLUSION: We concluded there was "sufficient evidence of toxicity" for associations between exposure to formaldehyde and asthma diagnosis and asthma symptoms in both children and adults. Our research documented that when exposures are ubiquitous, excluding health outcomes from benefit-cost analysis can underestimate the true benefits to health from environmental regulations.

RoB-SPEO: A tool for assessing risk of bias in studies estimating the prevalence of exposure to occupational risk factors from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing joint estimates of the work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates). For this, systematic reviews of studies estimating the prevalence of exposure to selected occupational risk factors will be conducted to provide input data for estimations of the number of exposed workers. A critical part of systematic review methods is to assess risk of bias (RoB) of individual studies. In this article, we present and describe the development of such a tool, called the Risk of Bias in Studies estimating Prevalence of Exposure to Occupational risk factors (RoB-SPEO) tool; report results from RoB-SPEO's pilot testing; note RoB-SPEO's limitations; and suggest how the tool might be tested and developed further. METHODS: Selected existing RoB tools used in environmental and occupational health systematic reviews were reviewed and analysed. From existing tools, we identified domains for the new tool and, if necessary, added new domains. For each domain, we then identified and integrated components from the existing tools (i.e. instructions, domains, guiding questions, considerations, ratings and rating criteria), and, if necessary, we developed new components. Finally, we elicited feedback from other systematic review methodologists and exposure scientists and agreed upon RoB-SPEO. Nine experts pilot tested RoB-SPEO, and we calculated a raw measure of inter-rater agreement (Pi) for each of its domain, rating Pi < 0.4 as poor, 0.4 ≤ Pi ≥ 0.8 as substantial and Pi > 0.80 as almost perfect agreement. RESULTS: Our review found no standard tool for assessing RoB in prevalence studies of exposure to occupational risk factors. We identified six existing tools for environmental and occupational health systematic reviews and found that their components for assessing RoB differ considerably. With the new RoB-SPEO tool, assessors judge RoB for each of eight domains: (1) bias in selection of participants into the study; (2) bias due to a lack of blinding of study personnel; (3) bias due to exposure misclassification; (4) bias due to incomplete exposure data; (5) bias due to conflict of interest; (6) bias due to selective reporting of exposures; (7) bias due to difference in numerator and denominator; and (8) other bias. The RoB-SPEO's ratings are low, probably low, probably high, high or no information. Pilot testing of the RoB-SPEO tool found substantial inter-rater agreement for six domains (range of Pi for these domains: 0.51-0.80), but poor agreement for two domains (i.e. Pi of 0.31 and 0.33 for biases due to incomplete exposure data and in selection of participants into the study, respectively). Limitations of RoB-SPEO include that it has not yet been fully performance-tested. CONCLUSIONS: We developed the RoB-SPEO tool for assessing RoB in prevalence studies of exposure to occupational risk factors. The tool will be applied and its performance tested in the ongoing systematic reviews for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates.

The risk of bias in observational studies of exposures (ROBINS-E) tool: concerns arising from application to observational studies of exposures.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews, which assess the risk of bias in included studies, are increasingly used to develop environmental hazard assessments and public health guidelines. These research areas typically rely on evidence from human observational studies of exposures, yet there are currently no universally accepted standards for assessing risk of bias in such studies. The risk of bias in non-randomised studies of exposures (ROBINS-E) tool has been developed by building upon tools for risk of bias assessment of randomised trials, diagnostic test accuracy studies and observational studies of interventions. This paper reports our experience with the application of the ROBINS-E tool. METHODS: We applied ROBINS-E to 74 exposure studies (60 cohort studies, 14 case-control studies) in 3 areas: environmental risk, dietary exposure and drug harm. All investigators provided written feedback, and we documented verbal discussion of the tool. We inductively and iteratively classified the feedback into 7 themes based on commonalities and differences until all the feedback was accounted for in the themes. We present a description of each theme. RESULTS: We identified practical concerns with the premise that ROBINS-E is a structured comparison of the observational study being rated to the 'ideal' randomised controlled trial. ROBINS-E assesses 7 domains of bias, but relevant questions related to some critical sources of bias, such as exposure and funding source, are not assessed. ROBINS-E fails to discriminate between studies with a single risk of bias or multiple risks of bias. ROBINS-E is severely limited at determining whether confounders will bias study outcomes. The construct of co-exposures was difficult to distinguish from confounders. Applying ROBINS-E was time-consuming and confusing. CONCLUSIONS: Our experience suggests that the ROBINS-E tool does not meet the need for an international standard for evaluating human observational studies for questions of harm relevant to public and environmental health. We propose that a simpler tool, based on empirical evidence of bias, would provide accurate measures of risk of bias and is more likely to meet the needs of the environmental and public health community.

Developmental PBDE Exposure and IQ/ADHD in Childhood: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: In the United States, one in six children are affected by neurodevelopmental disorders, and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) in flame-retardant chemicals are measured ubiquitously in children. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systematic a systematic review regarding developmental exposure to PBDEs and intelligence or Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and attention-related behavioral conditions in humans. METHODS: We searched articles published up to 26 September 2016, and included original studies that quantified exposures to PBDEs incurred any time in proximity to conception or during in utero, perinatal, or childhood time periods. We evaluated the risk of bias of individual studies and the overall quality and strength of the evidence according to the Navigation Guide systematic review methodology. We established criteria in advance to identify studies that could be combined using random effects meta-analyses (DerSimonian-Laird method). RESULTS: Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria; 10 studies met the criteria for intelligence and nine for attention-related problems. We rated studies generally with "low" to "probably low" risk of bias and rated the overall body of evidence as "moderate" quality with "sufficient" evidence for an association between Intelligence Quotient (IQ) and PBDEs. Our meta-analysis of four studies estimated a 10-fold increase (in other words, times 10) in PBDE exposure associated with a decrement of 3.70 IQ points (95% confidence interval: 0.83, 6.56). We concluded the body of evidence was of "moderate" quality for ADHD with "limited" evidence for an association with PBDEs, based on the heterogeneity of association estimates reported by a small number of studies and the fact that chance, bias, and confounding could not be ruled out with reasonable confidence. CONCLUSION: We concluded there was sufficient evidence supporting an association between developmental PBDE exposure and reduced IQ. Preventing developmental exposure to PBDEs could help prevent loss of human intelligence. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP1632.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Multiple Airborne Pollutants and Autism Spectrum Disorder.

BACKGROUND: Exposure to ambient air pollution is widespread and may be detrimental to human brain development and a potential risk factor for Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). We conducted a systematic review of the human evidence on the relationship between ASD and exposure to all airborne pollutants, including particulate matter air pollutants and others (e.g. pesticides and metals). OBJECTIVE: To answer the question: "is developmental exposure to air pollution associated with ASD?" METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of the literature, identified relevant studies using inclusion/exclusion criteria pre-specified in our protocol (registered in PROSPERO, CRD # 42015017890), evaluated the potential risk of bias for each included study and identified an appropriate subset of studies to combine in a meta-analysis. We then rated the overall quality and strength of the evidence collectively across all air pollutants. RESULTS: Of 1,158 total references identified, 23 human studies met our inclusion criteria (17 case-control, 4 ecological, 2 cohort). Risk of bias was generally low across studies for most domains; study limitations were related to potential confounding and accuracy of exposure assessment methods. We rated the quality of the body of evidence across all air pollutants as "moderate." From our meta-analysis, we found statistically significant summary odds ratios (ORs) of 1.07 (95% CI: 1.06, 1.08) per 10-µg/m3 increase in PM10 exposure (n = 6 studies) and 2.32 (95% CI: 2.15, 2.51) per 10-µg/m3 increase in PM2.5 exposure (n = 3 studies). For pollutants not included in a meta-analysis, we collectively evaluated evidence from each study in rating the strength and quality of overall evidence considering factors such as inconsistency, imprecision, and evidence of dose-response. All included studies generally showed increased risk of ASD with increasing exposure to air pollution, although not consistently across all chemical components. CONCLUSION: After considering strengths and limitations of the body of research, we concluded that there is "limited evidence of toxicity" for the association between early life exposure to air pollution as a whole and diagnosis of ASD. The strongest evidence was between prenatal exposure to particulate matter and ASD. However, the small number of studies in the meta-analysis and unexplained statistical heterogeneity across the individual study estimates means that the effect could be larger or smaller (including not significant) than these studies estimate. Our research supports the need for health protective public policy to reduce exposures to harmful airborne contaminants among pregnant women and children and suggests opportunities for optimizing future research.

Application of the Navigation Guide systematic review methodology to the evidence for developmental and reproductive toxicity of triclosan.

BACKGROUND: There are reports of developmental and reproductive health effects associated with the widely used biocide triclosan. OBJECTIVE: Apply the Navigation Guide systematic review methodology to answer the question: Does exposure to triclosan have adverse effects on human development or reproduction? METHODS: We applied the first 3 steps of the Navigation Guide methodology: 1) Specify a study question, 2) Select the evidence, and 3) Rate quality and strength of the evidence. We developed a protocol, conducted a comprehensive search of the literature, and identified relevant studies using pre-specified criteria. We assessed the number and type of all relevant studies. We evaluated each included study for risk of bias and rated the quality and strength of the evidence for the selected outcomes. We conducted a meta-analysis on a subset of suitable data. RESULTS: We found 4282 potentially relevant records, and 81 records met our inclusion criteria. Of the more than 100 endpoints identified by our search, we focused our evaluation on hormone concentration outcomes, which had the largest human and non-human mammalian data set. Three human studies and 8 studies conducted in rats reported thyroxine levels as outcomes. The rat data were amenable to meta-analysis. Because only one of the human thyroxine studies quantified exposure, we did not conduct a meta-analysis of the human data. Through meta-analysis of the data for rats, we estimated for prenatal exposure a 0.09% (95% CI: -0.20, 0.02) reduction in thyroxine concentration per mg triclosan/kg-bw in fetal and young rats compared to control. For postnatal exposure we estimated a 0.31% (95% CI: -0.38, -0.23) reduction in thyroxine per mg triclosan/kg-bw, also compared to control. Overall, we found low to moderate risk of bias across the human studies and moderate to high risk of bias across the non-human studies, and assigned a "moderate/low" quality rating to the body of evidence for human thyroid hormone alterations and a "moderate" quality rating to the body of evidence for non-human thyroid hormone alterations. CONCLUSION: Based on this application of the Navigation Guide systematic review methodology, we concluded that there was "sufficient" non-human evidence and "inadequate" human evidence of an association between triclosan exposure and thyroxine concentrations, and consequently, triclosan is "possibly toxic" to reproductive and developmental health. Thyroid hormone disruption is an upstream indicator of developmental toxicity. Additional endpoints may be identified as being of equal or greater concern as other data are developed or evaluated.

GRADE: Assessing the quality of evidence in environmental and occupational health.

There is high demand in environmental health for adoption of a structured process that evaluates and integrates evidence while making decisions and recommendations transparent. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework holds promise to address this demand. For over a decade, GRADE has been applied successfully to areas of clinical medicine, public health, and health policy, but experience with GRADE in environmental and occupational health is just beginning. Environmental and occupational health questions focus on understanding whether an exposure is a potential health hazard or risk, assessing the exposure to understand the extent and magnitude of risk, and exploring interventions to mitigate exposure or risk. Although GRADE offers many advantages, including its flexibility and methodological rigor, there are features of the different sources of evidence used in environmental and occupational health that will require further consideration to assess the need for method refinement. An issue that requires particular attention is the evaluation and integration of evidence from human, animal, in vitro, and in silico (computer modeling) studies when determining whether an environmental factor represents a potential health hazard or risk. Assessment of the hazard of exposures can produce analyses for use in the GRADE evidence-to-decision (EtD) framework to inform risk-management decisions about removing harmful exposures or mitigating risks. The EtD framework allows for grading the strength of the recommendations based on judgments of the certainty in the evidence (also known as quality of the evidence), as well as other factors that inform recommendations such as social values and preferences, resource implications, and benefits. GRADE represents an untapped opportunity for environmental and occupational health to make evidence-based recommendations in a systematic and transparent manner. The objectives of this article are to provide an overview of GRADE, discuss GRADE's applicability to environmental health, and identify priority areas for method assessment and development.

International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics opinion on reproductive health impacts of exposure to toxic environmental chemicals.

Exposure to toxic environmental chemicals during pregnancy and breastfeeding is ubiquitous and is a threat to healthy human reproduction. There are tens of thousands of chemicals in global commerce, and even small exposures to toxic chemicals during pregnancy can trigger adverse health consequences. Exposure to toxic environmental chemicals and related health outcomes are inequitably distributed within and between countries; universally, the consequences of exposure are disproportionately borne by people with low incomes. Discrimination, other social factors, economic factors, and occupation impact risk of exposure and harm. Documented links between prenatal exposure to environmental chemicals and adverse health outcomes span the life course and include impacts on fertility and pregnancy, neurodevelopment, and cancer. The global health and economic burden related to toxic environmental chemicals is in excess of millions of deaths and billions of dollars every year. On the basis of accumulating robust evidence of exposures and adverse health impacts related to toxic environmental chemicals, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) joins other leading reproductive health professional societies in calling for timely action to prevent harm. FIGO recommends that reproductive and other health professionals advocate for policies to prevent exposure to toxic environmental chemicals, work to ensure a healthy food system for all, make environmental health part of health care, and champion environmental justice.

Fetal growth and maternal glomerular filtration rate: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Glomerular filtration rate (GFR) may influence concentrations of biomarkers of exposure and their etiologic significance in observational studies of associations between environmental contaminants and fetal growth. It is unknown whether the size of a developing fetus affects maternal GFR such that a small fetus leads to reduced plasma volume expansion (PVE), reduced GFR and subsequent higher concentrations of biomarkers in maternal serum. Our objective was to answer the question: "Is there an association between fetal growth and maternal GFR in humans?" METHODS: We adapted and applied the Navigation Guide systematic review methodology to assess the evidence of an association between fetal growth and GFR, either directly or indirectly via reduction in PVE. RESULTS: We identified 35 relevant studies. We rated 31 human and two non-human observational studies as "low" quality and two experimental non-human studies as "very low" quality. We rated all three evidence streams as "inadequate". The association between fetal growth and GFR was "not classifiable" according to pre-specified definitions. CONCLUSIONS: There is currently insufficient evidence to support the plausibility of a reverse causality hypothesis for associations between exposure to environmental chemicals during pregnancy and fetal growth. Further research would be needed to confirm or disprove this hypothesis.

Counseling patients on preventing prenatal environmental exposures--a mixed-methods study of obstetricians.

OBJECTIVE: Describe the attitudes, beliefs, and practices of U.S. obstetricians on the topic of prenatal environmental exposures. STUDY DESIGN: A national online survey of American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) fellows and 3 focus groups of obstetricians. RESULTS: We received 2,514 eligible survey responses, for a response rate of 14%. The majority (78%) of obstetricians agreed that they can reduce patient exposures to environmental health hazards by counseling patients; but 50% reported that they rarely take an environmental health history; less than 20% reported routinely asking about environmental exposures commonly found in pregnant women in the U.S.; and only 1 in 15 reported any training on the topic. Barriers to counseling included: a lack of knowledge of and uncertainty about the evidence; concerns that patients lack the capacity to reduce harmful exposures; and fear of causing anxiety among patients. CONCLUSION: U.S. obstetricians in our study recognized the potential impact of the environment on reproductive health, and the role that physicians could play in prevention, but reported numerous barriers to counseling patients. Medical education and training, evidence-based guidelines, and tools for communicating risks to patients are needed to support the clinical role in preventing environmental exposures that threaten patient health.

The Navigation Guide systematic review methodology: a rigorous and transparent method for translating environmental health science into better health outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Synthesizing what is known about the environmental drivers of health is instrumental to taking prevention-oriented action. Methods of research synthesis commonly used in environmental health lag behind systematic review methods developed in the clinical sciences over the past 20 years. OBJECTIVES: We sought to develop a proof of concept of the "Navigation Guide," a systematic and transparent method of research synthesis in environmental health. DISCUSSION: The Navigation Guide methodology builds on best practices in research synthesis in evidence-based medicine and environmental health. Key points of departure from current methods of expert-based narrative review prevalent in environmental health include a prespecified protocol, standardized and transparent documentation including expert judgment, a comprehensive search strategy, assessment of "risk of bias," and separation of the science from values and preferences. Key points of departure from evidence-based medicine include assigning a "moderate" quality rating to human observational studies and combining diverse evidence streams. CONCLUSIONS: The Navigation Guide methodology is a systematic and rigorous approach to research synthesis that has been developed to reduce bias and maximize transparency in the evaluation of environmental health information. Although novel aspects of the method will require further development and validation, our findings demonstrated that improved methods of research synthesis under development at the National Toxicology Program and under consideration by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency are fully achievable. The institutionalization of robust methods of systematic and transparent review would provide a concrete mechanism for linking science to timely action to prevent harm.

The Navigation Guide - evidence-based medicine meets environmental health: systematic review of nonhuman evidence for PFOA effects on fetal growth.

BACKGROUND: In contrast to current methods of expert-based narrative review, the Navigation Guide is a systematic and transparent method for synthesizing environmental health research from multiple evidence streams. The Navigation Guide was developed to effectively and efficiently translate the available scientific evidence into timely prevention-oriented action. OBJECTIVES: We applied the Navigation Guide systematic review method to answer the question "Does fetal developmental exposure to perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) or its salts affect fetal growth in animals ?" and to rate the strength of the experimental animal evidence. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of the literature, applied prespecified criteria to the search results to identify relevant studies, extracted data from studies, obtained additional information from study authors, conducted meta-analyses, and rated the overall quality and strength of the evidence. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. From the meta-analysis of eight mouse gavage data sets, we estimated that exposure of pregnant mice to increasing concentrations of PFOA was associated with a change in mean pup birth weight of -0.023 g (95% CI: -0.029, -0.016) per 1-unit increase in dose (milligrams per kilogram body weight per day). The evidence, consisting of 15 mammalian and 6 nonmammalian studies, was rated as "moderate" and "low" quality, respectively. CONCLUSION: Based on this first application of the Navigation Guide methodology, we found sufficient evidence that fetal developmental exposure to PFOA reduces fetal growth in animals.

The Navigation Guide - evidence-based medicine meets environmental health: systematic review of human evidence for PFOA effects on fetal growth.

BACKGROUND: The Navigation Guide methodology was developed to meet the need for a robust method of systematic and transparent research synthesis in environmental health science. We conducted a case study systematic review to support proof of concept of the method. OBJECTIVE: We applied the Navigation Guide systematic review methodology to determine whether developmental exposure to perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) affects fetal growth in humans. METHODS: We applied the first 3 steps of the Navigation Guide methodology to human epidemiological data: 1) specify the study question, 2) select the evidence, and 3) rate the quality and strength of the evidence. We developed a protocol, conducted a comprehensive search of the literature, and identified relevant studies using prespecified criteria. We evaluated each study for risk of bias and conducted meta-analyses on a subset of studies. We rated quality and strength of the entire body of human evidence. RESULTS: We identified 18 human studies that met our inclusion criteria, and 9 of these were combined through meta-analysis. Through meta-analysis, we estimated that a 1-ng/mL increase in serum or plasma PFOA was associated with a -18.9 g (95% CI: -29.8, -7.9) difference in birth weight. We concluded that the risk of bias across studies was low, and we assigned a "moderate" quality rating to the overall body of human evidence. CONCLUSION: On the basis of this first application of the Navigation Guide systematic review methodology, we concluded that there is "sufficient" human evidence that developmental exposure to PFOA reduces fetal growth.

The Navigation Guide - evidence-based medicine meets environmental health: integration of animal and human evidence for PFOA effects on fetal growth.

BACKGROUND: The Navigation Guide is a novel systematic review method to synthesize scientific evidence and reach strength of evidence conclusions for environmental health decision making. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to integrate scientific findings from human and nonhuman studies to determine the overall strength of evidence for the question "Does developmental exposure to perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) affect fetal growth in humans?" METHODS: We developed and applied prespecified criteria to systematically and transparently a) rate the quality of the scientific evidence as "high," "moderate," or "low"; b) rate the strength of the human and nonhuman evidence separately as "sufficient," "limited," "moderate," or "evidence of lack of toxicity"; and c) integrate the strength of the human and nonhuman evidence ratings into a strength of the evidence conclusion. RESULTS: We identified 18 epidemiology studies and 21 animal toxicology studies relevant to our study question. We rated both the human and nonhuman mammalian evidence as "moderate" quality and "sufficient" strength. Integration of these evidence ratings produced a final strength of evidence rating in which review authors concluded that PFOA is "known to be toxic" to human reproduction and development based on sufficient evidence of decreased fetal growth in both human and nonhuman mammalian species. CONCLUSION: We concluded that developmental exposure to PFOA adversely affects human health based on sufficient evidence of decreased fetal growth in both human and nonhuman mammalian species. The results of this case study demonstrate the application of a systematic and transparent methodology, via the Navigation Guide, for reaching strength of evidence conclusions in environmental health.