Evaluation of Criteria Used to Assess the Quality of Aquatic Toxicity Data
Evaluation of Criteria Used to Assess the Quality of Aquatic Toxicity Data
复制标题
DOI：
10.1897/2004-003r.1
复制
发表时间：
2005-07-01
影响因子：
3.1
通讯作者：
Markich, Scott J.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hobbs, Dustin A.;Warne, Michael St. J.;Markich, Scott J.
高质量的毒性数据是对水生系统进行强有力的危害和风险评估以及制定生态系统水质准则的基础。因此，评估毒性数据质量的客观计划是这一进程的重要组成部分。由23位生态毒理学家评价了2篇研究论文使用澳大利亚生态毒性数据库（AED）质量评估方案的评分变化。结果表明，与本研究作者之间事先商定的质量评分相比，评审员给每篇论文的质量等级变化不到10%。经确定，每次评估中的大部分差异是由于评估标准模糊或书写不佳、信息难以找到或评估者忽略了论文中的信息。这导致了AED评估标准的改进，导致了16%的改善（即，减少）的平均变化的分数为2篇论文相比，先验分数。不同的评估员评估相同的研究论文之间的共识的改善表明，本文提出的数据质量评估方案提供了一个更强大的计划，评估水生毒性数据的质量比目前可用的方法。
Good quality toxicity data underpins robust hazard and risk assessments in aquatic systems and the derivation of water quality guidelines for ecosystems. Hence, an objective scheme to assess the quality of toxicity data forms an important part of this process. The variation of scores from 2 research papers using the Australasian ecotoxicity database (AED) quality assessment scheme was evaluated by 23 ecotoxicologists. The results showed that the quality class that the assessors gave each paper varied by less than 10% when compared with a quality score agreed a priori between the authors of this study. It was determined that the majority of the variation in each assessment was due to ambiguous or poorly written assessment criteria, information that was difficult to find, or information in the paper that was overlooked by the assessor. This led to refinements of the assessment criteria in the AED, which resulted in a 16% improvement (i.e., reduction) in the mean variation of scores for the 2 papers when compared with the a priori scores. The improvement in consensus among different assessors evaluating the same research papers suggests that the data quality assessment scheme proposed in this article provides a more robust scheme for assessing the quality of aquatic toxicity data than methods currently available.