The Principles of Weight of Evidence Validation of Test Methods and Testing Strategies

This is the report of the 58th of a series of workshops organised by the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM). The main objective of ECVAM, as defined in 1993 by its Scientific Advisory Committee (ESAC), is to promote the scientific and regulatory acceptance of alternative methods which are of importance to the biosciences, and which reduce, refine or replace the use of laboratory animals. One of the first priorities set by ECVAM was the implementation of procedures that would enable it to become well informed about the state of the art of non-animal test development and validation, and of opportunities for the possible incorporation of alternative methods into regulatory procedures. It was decided that this would be achieved through a programme of ECVAM workshops, each addressing a specific topic, and at which selected groups of independent international experts would review the current status of various types of in vitro tests and their potential uses, and make recommendations about the best ways forward (1). The workshop was organised by Michael Balls and Valérie Zuang, and took place on 5–7 May 2004, at the Hotel Lido, Angera (VA), Italy, with participants from academia, industry, research, and national and international validation authorities. The aim was to discuss and define principles and criteria for validation via weight-of-evidence approaches, and to provide guidance on the performance of this type of validation. The outcome of the discussions and the recommendations agreed upon by the workshop participants are summarised in this report, which also takes into account some subsequent events and publications.

[1]  Balls Michael,et al.  The Validation of Alternative Test Methods , 1996 .

[2]  P. Bossuyt,et al.  BMC Medical Research Methodology , 2002 .

[3]  David Moher,et al.  Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy. , 2003, Clinical chemistry.

[4]  B H Margolin,et al.  ICCVAM evaluation of the murine local lymph node assay. Data analyses completed by the National Toxicology Program Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods. , 2001, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[5]  J R Teagarden,et al.  Meta‐Analysis: Whither Narrative Review? , 1989, Pharmacotherapy.

[6]  T Hartung,et al.  Toward an evidence-based toxicology , 2006, Human & experimental toxicology.

[7]  M Balls Statement on the scientific validity of the 3T3 NRU PT test (an in vitro test for phototoxic potential) , 1998 .

[8]  D. Weed Weight of Evidence: A Review of Concept and Methods , 2005, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[9]  J. Ashby,et al.  Lack of binding to isolated estrogen or androgen receptors, and inactivity in the immature rat uterotrophic assay, of the ultraviolet sunscreen filters Tinosorb M-active and Tinosorb S. , 2001, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[10]  Johannes B Reitsma,et al.  A systematic review finds that diagnostic reviews fail to incorporate quality despite available tools. , 2005, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[11]  Raymond Tice,et al.  Validation via Weight-of-Evidence Approaches , 2006 .

[12]  George Davey Smith,et al.  Meta-analysis: Principles and procedures , 1997, BMJ.

[13]  Michael S Victoroff,et al.  Evidence-based toxicology: a comprehensive framework for causation , 2005, Human & experimental toxicology.

[14]  Valérie Zuang,et al.  A Modular Approach to the ECVAM Principles on Test Validity , 2004, Alternatives to laboratory animals : ATLA.

[15]  P. Katrak,et al.  A systematic review of the content of critical appraisal tools , 2004, BMC medical research methodology.

[16]  W S Stokes,et al.  ICCVAM evaluation of the murine local lymph node assay. The ICCVAM review process. , 2001, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[17]  Michael Balls,et al.  Report and Recommendations of the CAAT 1 /ERGATT 2 Workshop on the Validation of Toxicity Test Procedures 3 , 1990 .

[18]  G. Smith,et al.  Meta-analysis: Potentials and promise , 1997, BMJ.

[19]  W S Stokes,et al.  ICCVAM evaluation of the murine local lymph node assay. Conclusions and recommendations of an independent scientific peer review panel. , 2001, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[20]  Sebastian Hoffmann,et al.  Diagnosis: toxic!--trying to apply approaches of clinical diagnostics and prevalence in toxicology considerations. , 2005, Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

[21]  P Glasziou,et al.  Meta-analytic methods for diagnostic test accuracy. , 1995, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[22]  Spielmann Horst,et al.  Practical Aspects of the Validation of Toxicity Test Procedures , 1995 .

[23]  Thomas Hartung,et al.  Meeting Report: Validation of Toxicogenomics-Based Test Systems: ECVAM–ICCVAM/NICEATM Considerations for Regulatory Use , 2005, Environmental health perspectives.

[24]  S D Walter,et al.  Meta-analysis of diagnostic tests with imperfect reference standards. , 1999, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[25]  William S Stokes,et al.  The Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM): Recent Progress in the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicity Testing Methods , 2003 .

[26]  David Moher,et al.  Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. , 2004, Family practice.

[27]  Robert D. Combes,et al.  Practical Aspects of the Validation of Toxicity Test Procedures , 1995 .

[28]  A. Horvath,et al.  Systematic reviews in laboratory medicine: principles, processes and practical considerations. , 2004, Clinica chimica acta; international journal of clinical chemistry.

[29]  C. Gatsonis,et al.  Designing studies to ensure that estimates of test accuracy are transferable , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.