ReviewEnvironmental health perspectives2001
Pfiesteria: review of the science and identification of research gaps. Report for the National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Review in Environmental health perspectives, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Lack of evidence for contact sensitization by Pfiesteria extract.Environmental health perspectives · 2007Article
- Demonstration of toxicity to fish and to mammalian cells by Pfiesteria species: comparison of assay methods and strains.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2005Article
- Discovery of the toxic dinoflagellate Pfiesteria in northern European waters.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2002Article
- Emerging areas of research reported during the CDC National Conference on Pfiesteria: from biology to public health.Environmental health perspectives · 2001Article
- Species of the toxic Pfiesteria complex, and the importance of functional type in data interpretation.Environmental health perspectives · 2001Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In connection with the CDC National Conference on Pfiesteria, a multidisciplinary panel evaluated Pfiesteria-related research. The panel set out what was known and what was not known about adverse effects of the organism on estuarine ecology, fish, and human health; assessed the methods used in Pfiesteria research; and offered suggestions to address data gaps. The panel's expertise covered dinoflagellate ecology; fish pathology and toxicology; laboratory measurement of toxins, epidemiology, and neurology. The panel evaluated peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed literature available through June 2000 in a systematic conceptual framework that moved from the source of exposure, through exposure research and dose, to human health effects. Substantial uncertainties remain throughout the conceptual framework the panel used to guide its evaluation. Firm evidence demonstrates that Pfiesteria is toxic to fish, but the specific toxin has not been isolated or characterized. Laboratory and field evidence indicate that the organism has a complex life cycle. The consequences of human exposure to Pfiesteria toxin and the magnitude of the human health problem remain obscure. The patchwork of approaches used in clinical evaluation and surrogate measures of exposure to the toxin are major limitations of this work. To protect public health, the panel suggests that priority be given research that will provide better insight into the effects of Pfiesteria on human health. Key gaps include the identity and mechanism of action of the toxin(s), the incomplete description of effects of exposure in invertebrates, fish, and humans, and the nature and extent of exposures that place people at risk.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.