Dataset Information

Quality Criteria for the Analysis of Microplastic in Biota Samples: A Critical Review.

ABSTRACT: Data on ingestion of microplastics by marine biota are quintessential for monitoring and risk assessment of microplastics in the environment. Current studies, however, portray a wide spread in results on the occurrence of microplastic ingestion, highlighting a lack of comparability of results, which might be attributed to a lack of standardization of methods. We critically review and evaluate recent microplastic ingestion studies in aquatic biota, propose a quality assessment method for such studies, and apply the assessment method to the reviewed studies. The quality assessment method uses ten criteria: sampling method and strategy, sample size, sample processing and storage, laboratory preparation, clean air conditions, negative controls, positive controls, target component, sample (pre)treatment, and polymer identification. The results of this quality assessment show a dire need for stricter quality assurance in microplastic ingestion studies. On average, studies score 8.0 out of 20 points for "completeness of information" and 0 for "reliability". Alongside the assessment method, a standardized protocol for detecting microplastic in biota samples incorporating these criteria is provided.

SUBMITTER: Hermsen E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6146318 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Quality Criteria for the Analysis of Microplastic in Biota Samples: A Critical Review.

Hermsen Enya E Mintenig Svenja M SM Besseling Ellen E Koelmans Albert A AA

Environmental science & technology 20180906 18

Data on ingestion of microplastics by marine biota are quintessential for monitoring and risk assessment of microplastics in the environment. Current studies, however, portray a wide spread in results on the occurrence of microplastic ingestion, highlighting a lack of comparability of results, which might be attributed to a lack of standardization of methods. We critically review and evaluate recent microplastic ingestion studies in aquatic biota, propose a quality assessment method for such stu ...[more]

PMID: 30137965

Similar Datasets

Project description:In the literature, there is widespread consensus that methods in plastic research need improvement. Current limitations in quality assurance and harmonization prevent progress in our understanding of the true effects of microplastic in the environment. Following the recent development of quality assessment methods for studies reporting concentrations in biota and water samples, we propose a method to assess the quality of microplastic effect studies. We reviewed 105 microplastic effect studies with aquatic biota, provided a systematic overview of their characteristics, developed 20 quality criteria in four main criteria categories (particle characterization, experimental design, applicability in risk assessment, and ecological relevance), propose a protocol for future effect studies with particles, and, finally, used all the information to define the weight of evidence with respect to demonstrated effect mechanisms. On average, studies scored 44.6% (range 20-77.5%) of the maximum score. No study scored positively on all criteria, reconfirming the urgent need for better quality assurance. Most urgent recommendations for improvement relate to avoiding and verifying background contamination, and to improving the environmental relevance of exposure conditions. The majority of the studies (86.7%) evaluated on particle characteristics properly, nonetheless it should be underlined that by failing to provide characteristics of the particles, an entire experiment can become irreproducible. Studies addressed environmentally realistic polymer types fairly well; however, there was a mismatch between sizes tested and those targeted when analyzing microplastic in environmental samples. In far too many instances, studies suggest and speculate mechanisms that are poorly supported by the design and reporting of data in the study. This represents a problem for decision-makers and needs to be minimized in future research. In their papers, authors frame 10 effects mechanisms as "suggested", whereas 7 of them are framed as "demonstrated". When accounting for the quality of the studies according to our assessment, three of these mechanisms remained. These are inhibition of food assimilation and/or decreased nutritional value of food, internal physical damage, and external physical damage. We recommend that risk assessment addresses these mechanisms with higher priority.

Project description:ObjectiveValid, reliable critical appraisal tools advance quality improvement (QI) intervention impacts by helping stakeholders identify higher quality studies. QI approaches are diverse and differ from clinical interventions. Widely used critical appraisal instruments do not take unique QI features into account and existing QI tools (eg, Standards for QI Reporting Excellence) are intended for publication guidance rather than critical appraisal. This study developed and psychometrically tested a critical appraisal instrument, the QI Minimum Quality Criteria Set (QI-MQCS) for assessing QI-specific features of QI publications.MethodsApproaches to developing the tool and ensuring validity included a literature review, in-person and online survey expert panel input, and application to empirical examples. We investigated psychometric properties in a set of diverse QI publications (N=54) by analysing reliability measures and item endorsement rates and explored sources of disagreement between reviewers.ResultsThe QI-MQCS includes 16 content domains to evaluate QI intervention publications: Organisational Motivation, Intervention Rationale, Intervention Description, Organisational Characteristics, Implementation, Study Design, Comparator Description, Data Sources, Timing, Adherence/Fidelity, Health Outcomes, Organisational Readiness, Penetration/Reach, Sustainability, Spread and Limitations. Median inter-rater agreement for QI-MQCS items was κ 0.57 (83% agreement). Item statistics indicated sufficient ability to differentiate between publications (median quality criteria met 67%). Internal consistency measures indicated coherence without excessive conceptual overlap (absolute mean interitem correlation=0.19). The critical appraisal instrument is accompanied by a user manual detailing What to consider, Where to look and How to rate.ConclusionsWe developed a ready-to-use, valid and reliable critical appraisal instrument applicable to healthcare QI intervention publications, but recognise scope for continuing refinement.

Project description:While single indicators measure a specific aspect of quality (e.g. timely support during labour), users of these indicators, such as patients, providers and policy-makers, are typically interested in some broader construct (e.g. quality of maternity care) whose measurement requires a set of indicators. However, guidance on desirable properties of indicator sets is lacking. Based on the premise that a set of valid indicators does not guarantee a valid set of indicators, the aim of this review is 2-fold: First, we introduce content validity as a desirable property of indicator sets and review the extent to which studies in the peer-reviewed health care quality literature address this criterion. Second, to obtain a complete inventory of criteria, we examine what additional criteria of quality indicator sets were used so far. We searched the databases Web of Science, Medline, Cinahl and PsycInfo from inception to May 2021 and the reference lists of included studies. English- or German-language, peer-reviewed studies concerned with desirable characteristics of quality indicator sets were included. Applying qualitative content analysis, two authors independently coded the articles using a structured coding scheme and discussed conflicting codes until consensus was reached. Of 366 studies screened, 62 were included in the review. Eighty-five per cent (53/62) of studies addressed at least one of the component criteria of content validity (content coverage, proportional representation and contamination) and 15% (9/62) addressed all component criteria. Studies used various content domains to structure the targeted construct (e.g. quality dimensions, elements of the care pathway and policy priorities), providing a framework to assess content validity. The review revealed four additional substantive criteria for indicator sets: cost of measurement (21% [13/62] of the included studies), prioritization of 'essential' indicators (21% [13/62]), avoidance of redundancy (13% [8/62]) and size of the set (15% [9/62]). Additionally, four procedural criteria were identified: stakeholder involvement (69% [43/62]), using a conceptual framework (44% [27/62]), defining the purpose of measurement (26% [16/62]) and transparency of the development process (8% [5/62]). The concept of content validity and its component criteria help assessing whether conclusions based on a set of indicators are valid conclusions about the targeted construct. To develop a valid indicator set, careful definition of the targeted construct including its (sub-)domains is paramount. Developers of quality indicators should specify the purpose of measurement and consider trade-offs with other criteria for indicator sets whose application may reduce content validity (e.g. costs of measurement) in light thereof.

Dataset Information

Quality Criteria for the Analysis of Microplastic in Biota Samples: A Critical Review.

Publications

Quality Criteria for the Analysis of Microplastic in Biota Samples: A Critical Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets