CRED: Criteria for reporting and evaluating ecotoxicity data

Predicted‐no‐effect concentrations (PNECs) and environmental quality standards (EQSs) are derived in a large number of legal frameworks worldwide. When deriving these safe concentrations, it is necessary to evaluate the reliability and relevance of ecotoxicity studies. Such evaluation is often subject to expert judgment, which may introduce bias and decrease consistency when risk assessors evaluate the same study. The Criteria for Reporting and Evaluating Ecotoxicity Data (CRED) project attempts to address this problem. It aims to improve the reproducibility, transparency, and consistency of reliability and relevance evaluations of aquatic ecotoxicity studies among regulatory frameworks, countries, institutes, and individual assessors. In the present study, the CRED evaluation method is presented. It includes a set of 20 reliability and 13 relevance criteria, accompanied by extensive guidance. Risk assessors who participated in the CRED ring test evaluated the CRED evaluation method to be more accurate, applicable, consistent, and transparent than the often‐used Klimisch method. The CRED evaluation method is accompanied by reporting recommendations for aquatic ecotoxicity studies, with 50 specific criteria divided into 6 categories: general information, test design, test substance, test organism, exposure conditions, and statistical design and biological response. An ecotoxicity study in which all important information is reported is more likely to be considered for regulatory use, and proper reporting may also help in the peer‐review process. Environ Toxicol Chem 2016;35:1297–1309. © 2015 The Authors. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of SETAC.

[1]  Michael St J Warne,et al.  Evaluation of Criteria Used to Assess the Quality of Aquatic Toxicity Data , 2005, Integrated environmental assessment and management.

[2]  Hilla Peretz,et al.  Ju n 20 03 Schrödinger ’ s Cat : The rules of engagement , 2003 .

[3]  Anna Beronius,et al.  Risk to all or none? A comparative analysis of controversies in the health risk assessment of Bisphenol A. , 2010, Reproductive toxicology.

[4]  S. Pocock,et al.  Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration , 2007, PLoS medicine.

[5]  U. Tillmann,et al.  A systematic approach for evaluating the quality of experimental toxicological and ecotoxicological data. , 1997, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[6]  Allanou Remi,et al.  Public Availability of Data on EU High Production Volume Chemicals. Part 1. , 2003 .

[7]  Hans Blanck,et al.  Pollution-induced community tolerance (PICT) - a new ecotoxicological tool. In: Cairns J Jr. & Pratt JR (eds) Functional testing of Aquatic Biota for Estimating Hazards of Chemicals, ASTM STP 988 , 1988 .

[8]  H. Blanck,et al.  Pollution-Induced Community Tolerance—A New Ecotoxicological Tool , 1988 .

[9]  Mike Roberts,et al.  Principles of sound ecotoxicology. , 2014, Environmental science & technology.

[10]  J. Bohannon Who's afraid of peer review? , 2013, Science.

[11]  R. Tibshirani,et al.  Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis , 2014, The Lancet.

[12]  Marlene Ågerstrand,et al.  Comparison of four different methods for reliability evaluation of ecotoxicity data: a case study of non-standard test data used in environmental risk assessments of pharmaceutical substances , 2011 .

[13]  Marlene Ågerstrand,et al.  Criteria for Reporting and Evaluating ecotoxicity Data (CRED): comparison and perception of the Klimisch and CRED methods for evaluating reliability and relevance of ecotoxicity studies , 2016, Environmental Sciences Europe.

[14]  R. Becker,et al.  Enhancing Credibility of Chemical Safety Studies: Emerging Consensus on Key Assessment Criteria , 2010, Environmental health perspectives.

[15]  US societies push back against NIH reproducibility guidelines , 2015, Nature.

[16]  G. Ankley,et al.  Screening and Testing for Endocrine Disruption in Fish—Biomarkers As “Signposts,” Not “Traffic Lights,” in Risk Assessment , 2005, Environmental health perspectives.

[17]  Jason E. Stewart,et al.  Minimum information about a microarray experiment (MIAME)—toward standards for microarray data , 2001, Nature Genetics.

[18]  PESTICIDE REGULATORS IGNORE THE LEGAL OBLIGATION TO USE INDEPENDENT SCIENCE FOR DERIVING SAFE EXPOSURE LEVELS , 2014 .

[19]  I. Cuthill,et al.  Reporting : The ARRIVE Guidelines for Reporting Animal Research , 2010 .

[20]  H. Tilson,et al.  Reporting of Results from Animal Studies , 2013, Environmental health perspectives.

[21]  C Rudén,et al.  Reporting and evaluation criteria as means towards a transparent use of ecotoxicity data for environmental risk assessment of pharmaceuticals. , 2011, Environmental pollution.

[22]  Judi L. Durda,et al.  Data Quality Evaluation of Toxicological Studies Used to Derive Ecotoxicological Benchmarks , 2000 .

[23]  Thomas Hartung,et al.  "ToxRTool", a new tool to assess the reliability of toxicological data. , 2009, Toxicology letters.

[24]  ON EMERGING AND NEWLY IDENTIFIED HEALTH RISKS ( SCENIHR ) Opinion on The appropriateness of existing methodologies to assess the potential risks associated with engineered and adventitious products of nanotechnologies , 2005 .

[25]  Richard D. Handy,et al.  The ecotoxicology of nanoparticles and nanomaterials: current status, knowledge gaps, challenges, and future needs , 2008, Ecotoxicology.

[26]  Christina Rudén From data to decision : A case study of controversies in cancer risk assessment , 2002 .

[27]  Marlene Ågerstrand,et al.  Bad Reporting or Bad Science? Systematic Data Evaluation as a Means to Improve the Use of Peer-Reviewed Studies in Risk Assessments of Chemicals , 2014 .

[28]  C. Toader,et al.  Guidance Document No. 27. Technical Guidance For Deriving Environmental Quality Standards , 2011 .

[29]  Gary W Miller,et al.  Improving reproducibility in toxicology. , 2014, Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology.