Table 5.
Ranking of the methods for establishing lines of evidence.
| Approach | Identifying and selecting studiesa | Assessing the quality of the studiesa | Analyzing a set of studies of similar typea | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PN | REL | FEA | PN | REL | FEA | PN | REL | FEA | |
| AMSTAR | NA | NA | NA | 4 | 3 | 4 | NA | NA | NA |
| Bradford Hill | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | 2 | 4 | 4 |
| Epid-Tox | NA | NA | NA | 2 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 3 |
| FDA | NA | NA | NA | 3 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 3 |
| GRADE | NA | NA | NA | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
| Hope and Clarkson | NA | NA | NA | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 |
| IARC | NA | NA | NA | 2 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
| ILSI | NA | NA | NA | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 |
| INCa | 3 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 4 | NA | NA | NA |
| Klimisch | NA | NA | NA | 2 | 3 | 4 | NA | NA | NA |
| Meta-analysis | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | 4 | 4 | 1 |
| Modified Bradford Hill | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| Multi-criteria analysis | NA | NA | NA | 2 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 3 |
| Navigation Guide | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 3 |
| OHAT | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 3 |
| SR-Cochrane | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 4 | NA | NA | NA |
| SR-EFSA | 3 | 3 | 2 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| SCENIHR | NA | NA | NA | 2 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 4 |
| WCRF/AICR | NA | NA | NA | 2 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 |
| Weighted Bradford Hill | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | 3 | 3 | 3 |
Note: AMSTAR, Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews; EFSA, European Food Safety Authority; FDA, U.S. Food and Drug Administration; FEA, Feasibility; GRADE, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation; IARC, International Agency for Research on Cancer; ILSI, International Life Sciences Institute; INCa, Institut National du Cancer/French National Cancer Institute; NA, Not applicable because the corresponding step was not addressed by the approach; NRC, U.S. National Research Council; OHAT, Office of Health Assessment and Translation; PF, Practical Framework; PN, Prescriptive nature; REL, Relevance; SCENIHR, Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks; SR, Systematic Review; WCRF/AICR, World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer Research.
The rankings were assigned to the methods by the authors collectively and reflect relative consideration of each of the three aspects defined and outlined in the Methods and Table 1: the extent of prescriptive nature contributing to transparency and reproducibility, relevance to be broadly applied within ANSES, and ease of implementation in terms of time and material/human resources (feasibility). Each aspect is ranked from 1 (i.e., the least) to 4 (i.e., the most).