Abstract

An expert panel was assembled to support a review of a series of recent publications using a modified Delphi format. These publications were scored grounded on a consideration of confidence in their styles, results, conclusions, and connection to threat- grounded decision timber. Mean confidence scores for the papers reviewed ranged from 53 to 74( maximum score = 100), and crucial strengths and enterprises were linked. This review highlights the need for translucency in meta- analyses. Different conclusions were reached in available meta- analyses because of varying criteria used to elect studies, selection of different threat estimates within the same study, and study vacuity. Confidence in eventuality a unproductive relationship between glyphosate exposure and NHL was considered low.