---
title: "Evidence-based toxicology"
chunk: 3/3
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence-based_toxicology"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:25:48.329362+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---

== Limitations and challenges ==
The specific differences between toxicology and medicine/health care cause challenges for implementing EBT. Evidence-based methodology of clinical research has been focused on a single type of study—randomized, controlled clinical trials, which are a direct measure of the effectiveness of the health care intervention under scrutiny.  In contrast, toxicology employs a variety of different kinds of studies in three distinct evidence streams:  human (observational) studies, animal studies, and non-animal studies.  Because human evidence is frequently lacking most evidence is obtained by using animal and non-animal models, which—by definition—is more difficult to generalize and extrapolate to humans.  This methodological heterogeneity complicates evidence integration within an evidence stream, such as when inconsistent evidence is obtained from different animal species, but even more so across evidence streams.  Adding to the difficulty is the reality that much toxicological evidence, more so than in medicine and health care, is not readily accessible in the literature.  Moreover, the role of expert judgment, especially in systematic reviews, needs to be clearly defined, as it is a common misperception that evidence-based approaches leave no room for it.  Systematic reviews should strive to make expert judgments clear along with the scientific basis for those judgments in developing conclusions for a systematic review.  Further issues to be worked out include exposures to multiple substances, the multitude of outcomes observed in some animal studies, and challenges in improving the experimental designs and reporting of studies.

== See also ==
Evidence-based medicine
Evidence-based practice

== References ==