Skip to main content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Dot gov

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

HTTPS

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

  • Environmental Topics
  • Laws & Regulations
  • Report a Violation
  • About EPA
Risk Assessment
Contact Us

Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) response to “Assessing risk of bias in human environmental epidemiology studies using three tools: different conclusions from different tools”

On this page:

  • Overview
  • Downloads
“Assessing risk of bias in human environmental epidemiology studies using three tools: different conclusions from different tools” by Eick et al. (2020) applied the study evaluation approach developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), as well as other approaches, to a set of studies examining polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) and neurodevelopment. They concluded that use of the IRIS approach resulted in exclusion of studies, which would lead to hazard conclusions based on an incomplete body of evidence. As scientists in the IRIS program, we support the comparison of approaches to improve systematic review methods for environmental exposures. However, we believe the IRIS approach was misrepresented, so we would like to clarify several points about its use. 

Impact/Purpose

This response to “Assessing risk of bias in human environmental epidemiology studies using three tools: different conclusions from different tools” by Eick et al. (2020) addresses important misrepresentations of the IRIS approach to study evaluation. 

Citation

Radke-Farabaugh, E., B. Glenn, AND A. Kraft. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) response to “Assessing risk of bias in human environmental epidemiology studies using three tools: different conclusions from different tools”. BioMed Central Ltd, London, UK, 10:235, (2021). [DOI: 10.1186/s13643-021-01783-6]

Download(s)

DOI: Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) response to “Assessing risk of bias in human environmental epidemiology studies using three tools: different conclusions from different tools”
  • Risk Assessment Home
  • About Risk Assessment
  • Risk Recent Additions
  • Human Health Risk Assessment
  • Ecological Risk Assessment
  • Risk Advanced Search
    • Risk Publications
  • Risk Assessment Guidance
  • Risk Tools and Databases
  • Superfund Risk Assessment
  • Where you live
Contact Us to ask a question, provide feedback, or report a problem.
Last updated on August 25, 2021
United States Environmental Protection Agency

Discover.

  • Accessibility Statement
  • Budget & Performance
  • Contracting
  • EPA www Web Snapshots
  • Grants
  • No FEAR Act Data
  • Privacy
  • Privacy and Security Notice

Connect.

  • Data
  • Inspector General
  • Jobs
  • Newsroom
  • Open Government
  • Regulations.gov
  • Subscribe
  • USA.gov
  • White House

Ask.

  • Contact EPA
  • EPA Disclaimers
  • Hotlines
  • FOIA Requests
  • Frequent Questions

Follow.