Elizabeth G. Radke

BACKGROUND: Observational epidemiologic studies provide critical data for the evaluation of the potential effects of environmental, occupational and behavioural exposures on human health. Systematic reviews of these studies play a key role in informing policy and practice. Systematic reviews should incorporate assessments of the risk of bias in results of the included studies. OBJECTIVE: To develop a new tool, Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Exposures (ROBINS-E) to assess risk of bias in estimates from cohort studies of the causal effect of an exposure on an outcome. METHODS AND RESULTS: ROBINS-E was developed by a large group of researchers from diverse research and public health disciplines through a series of working groups, in-person meetings and pilot testing phases. The tool aims to assess the risk of bias in a specific result (exposure effect estimate) from an individual observational study that examines the effect of an exposure on an outcome. A series of preliminary considerations informs the core ROBINS-E assessment, including details of the result being assessed and the causal effect being estimated. The assessment addresses bias within seven domains, through a series of 'signalling questions'. Domain-level judgements about risk of bias are derived from the answers to these questions, then combined to produce an overall risk of bias judgement for the result, together with judgements about the direction of bias. CONCLUSION: ROBINS-E provides a standardized framework for examining potential biases in results from cohort studies. Future work will produce variants of the tool for other epidemiologic study designs (e.g. case-control studies). We believe that ROBINS-E represents an important development in the integration of exposure assessment, evidence synthesis and causal inference.

OBJECTIVE: We performed a systematic review of the epidemiology literature to identify the male reproductive effects associated with phthalate exposure. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Six phthalates were included in the review: di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), diisononyl phthalate (DINP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP), diisobutyl phthalate (DIBP), butyl benzyl phthalate (BBP), and diethyl phthalate (DEP). The initial literature search (of PubMed, Web of Science, and Toxline) included all studies of male reproductive effects in humans, and outcomes were selected for full systematic review based on data availability. STUDY EVALUATION AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: For each outcome, studies were evaluated using criteria defined a priori for risk of bias and sensitivity by two reviewers using a domain-based approach. Evidence was synthesized by outcome and phthalate and strength of evidence was summarized using a structured framework. RESULTS: The primary outcomes reviewed here are (number of included/excluded studies in parentheses): anogenital distance (6/1), semen parameters (15/9), time to pregnancy (3/5), testosterone (13/8), timing of pubertal development (5/15), and hypospadias/cryptorchidism (4/10). Looking at the overall hazard, there was robust evidence of an association between DEHP and DBP exposure and male reproductive outcomes; this was based primarily on studies of anogenital distance, semen parameters, and testosterone for DEHP and semen parameters and time to pregnancy for DBP. There was moderate evidence of an association between DINP and BBP exposure and male reproductive outcomes based on testosterone and semen parameters for DINP and semen parameters and time to pregnancy for BBP. DIBP and DEP were considered to have slight evidence of an association. For DIBP, the less conclusive evidence was attributed to a more limited literature base (i.e., fewer studies) and lower exposure levels in the population, decreasing the ability to observe an effect. For DEP, the findings were consistent with experimental animal data that suggest DEP does not haves as strong an anti-androgenic effect as other phthalates. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS: Overall, despite some inconsistencies across phthalates in the specific outcomes associated with exposure, these results support that phthalate exposure at levels seen in human populations may have male reproductive effects, particularly DEHP and DBP. The relative strength of the evidence reflects differing levels of toxicity as well as differences in the range of exposures studied and the number of available studies. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views or policies of the U.S. EPA.

OBJECTIVE: We performed a systematic review of the epidemiology literature to identify the neurodevelopmental effects associated with phthalate exposure. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Six phthalates were included in the review: di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), diisononyl phthalate (DINP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP), diisobutyl phthalate (DIBP), butyl benzyl phthalate (BBP), and diethyl phthalate (DEP). The initial literature search (of PubMed, Web of Science, and Toxline) included all studies of neurodevelopmental effects in humans, and outcomes were selected for full systematic review based on data availability. STUDY EVALUATION AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Studies of neurodevelopmental effects were evaluated using criteria defined a priori for risk of bias and sensitivity by two reviewers using a domain-based approach. Evidence was synthesized by outcome and phthalate and strength of evidence was summarized using a structured framework. For studies of cognition and motor effects in children ≤4 years old, a random effects meta-analysis was performed. RESULTS: The primary outcomes reviewed here are (number of studies in parentheses): cognition (14), motor effects (9), behavior, including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (20), infant behavior (3), and social behavior, including autism spectrum disorder (7). For each phthalate/outcome combination, there was slight or indeterminate evidence of an association, with the exception of motor effects for BBP, which had moderate evidence. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS: Overall, there is not a clear pattern of association between prenatal phthalate exposures and neurodevelopment. There are several possible reasons for the observed null associations related to exposure misclassification, periods of heightened susceptibility, sex-specific effects, and the effects of phthalate mixtures. Until these limitations are adequately addressed in the epidemiology literature, these findings should not be interpreted as evidence that there are no neurodevelopmental effects of phthalate exposure. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views or policies of the U.S. EPA.

OBJECTIVE: We performed a systematic review of the epidemiology literature to identify the metabolic effects associated with phthalate exposure. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Six phthalates were included in the review: di(2‑ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), diisononyl phthalate (DINP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP), diisobutyl phthalate (DIBP), butyl benzyl phthalate (BBP), and diethyl phthalate (DEP). The initial literature search (of PubMed, Web of Science, and Toxline) included all studies of metabolic effects in humans, and outcomes were selected for full systematic review based on data availability. STUDY EVALUATION AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Studies of diabetes and insulin resistance were evaluated using criteria defined a priori for risk of bias and sensitivity by two reviewers using a domain-based approach; studies identified with a pre-defined critical deficiency were excluded. Evidence was synthesized by outcome and phthalate and strength of evidence was summarized using a structured framework. Studies of obesity and renal effects received "screening level" reviews to determine whether full systematic review was warranted. RESULTS: The primary outcomes reviewed here are (number of included/excluded studies in parentheses): type 2 diabetes (1/3), insulin resistance (13/3), and impaired glucose tolerance and blood glucose in pregnancy (4/2). For DEHP exposure, there was consistency among studies of insulin resistance and coherence with the single included study of diabetes, as well as an observed exposure-response gradient observed in a study of insulin resistance. This evidence is considered moderate. Similarly, for DBP and DIBP exposure, the evidence is considered moderate due to strong positive associations in the diabetes study and coherent results for insulin resistance. For DINP, BBP, and DEP, the evidence is considered slight. No association was reported in the single study of diabetes with BBP and DEP exposure (DINP was not investigated). The available evidence does indicate an association between exposure to these phthalates and insulin resistance, but the small number of studies and the lack of coherence with diabetes decreases confidence. The screening level reviews for obesity and renal effects determined that the currently available evidence is inadequate to assess the associations between these outcomes and phthalate exposure. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS: Overall, these results support that phthalate exposure at levels seen in human populations may have metabolic effects. Given the mechanistic support, the large effect sizes for incident diabetes in the single available study, and the coherence with insulin resistance, the association between phthalate exposure and diabetes risk should be considered when assessing the risks and costs of exposure to specific phthalates in humans. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views or policies of the U.S. EPA.