[3][4] These include concerns related to transparency in decision making, synthesis of different types of evidence, and the assessment of bias and credibility.
[9] The U.S. National Research Council (NRC) concurs that new means of assessment are needed to keep pace with recent advances in the development of toxicological test methods, capitalizing on enhanced scientific understanding through modern biochemistry and molecular biology.
Historically, authors of reviews assessing the results of toxicological studies on a particular topic have searched, selected, and weighed the scientific evidence in a non-systematic and non-transparent way.
Scientists have made progress in their efforts to apply the systematic review framework to evaluating the evidence for associations between environmental toxicants and human health risks.
To date, researchers have shown that important elements of the framework established in evidence-based medicine can be adapted to toxicology with little change, and some studies have been attempted.
[3][16][17] Evidence-based approaches were first conceived as a means of anchoring policy decisions, not to current practices or the beliefs of experts, but to experimental evidence.
[19] The Cochrane Collaboration named in his honor was launched at Oxford University in 1993 to promote evidence-based reviews of clinical medical literature.
[23][24] Three research papers published in 2005 and 2006 catalyzed what eventually became known as EBT by suggesting that EBM's established tools and concepts might serve as a prototype of evidence-based decision-making in toxicology.
[15][16] They argue that EBT's methodologies for collecting, appraising, and pooling evidence can help ensure that all available information on a given topic is evaluated in a transparent, unbiased, and reproducible manner.
They contend that EBT's concept of the systematic review could prove particularly helpful for the standardization and quality assurance of novel methodologies for evaluating toxicity, as well as for their formal validation.
[28] The session on the potential for evidence-based approaches to assess the performance of the new generation of non-animal test methods inspired the formation of the EBTC.
Consequently, the participants called for close collaboration of interested organizations, which they determined to be a pre-requisite for the broad and efficient introduction of systematic reviews in toxicology.
[33] OHAT’s approach is tailored to its mandate, but its seems especially appropriate for substances with substantial yet conflicting literature, and hence the need for systematic reviews to sort out somewhat confusing situations.
[37][38] Guidance documents based on this approach have already been published The National Research Council's (NRC) landmark 2007 publication, "Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century", has also been an impetus for EBT.
[39] The Evidence-based Toxicology Collaboration has pioneered a number of projects aimed at applying EBT approaches and systematic reviews to test methods comparison.
[3][15] Moreover, the role of expert judgment, especially in systematic reviews, needs to be clearly defined, as it is a common misperception that evidence-based approaches leave no room for it.