The ability of epidemiologic evidence to inform regulatory decisions is largely dependent on the coherence and quality of the published literature. This systematic review examines the quality and consistency of studies assessing health outcomes associated with exposure to triclosan (TCS), an antimicrobial chemical with a short physiologic half-life. We used elements of the Biomonitoring, Environmental Epidemiology, and Short-Lived Chemicals instrument to evaluate aspects of study quality. Each methodological domain - overall design, exposure assessment, and data analysis - was categorized according to three tiers where Tier 1 indicated the highest quality. We also examined consistency of methods, results and reporting as considerations for weight of evidence (WOE) assessment. Studies were considered sufficiently comparable if they addressed the same or similar research questions. Forty-two studies met the criteria for inclusion. Only one randomized cross-over clinical trial of TCS was assigned to Tier 1 for all three domains. Most other studies were assigned to Tier 3 for at least one domain. Although the available literature examined more than 100 different health endpoints and reported hundreds of different measures of association, few studies were considered comparable. For reported measures of association, most were not significantly different from the null; the few statistically significant results represented isolated findings without a discernable across- or within-study pattern. We conclude that the current body of epidemiologic literature does not allow a meaningful WOE assessment due to methodological limitations of individual studies and lack of inter-study consistency. On the other hand, methodologically stronger studies may be used to inform future research.
Keywords: BEES-C; ICC; PI(E)CO; Triclosan; anti-androgen; epidemiology; short-lived chemical; systematic review.