Good laboratory practices and safety assessments: another view.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Acute intraocular toxicity caused by perfluorocarbon liquids: safety control systems of medical devices.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2022
   Review
2. Regulatory decisions on endocrine disrupting chemicals should be based on the principles of endocrinology.Reproductive toxicology (Elmsford, N.Y.) · 2013
   Review
3. Estrogenic environmental chemicals and drugs: mechanisms for effects on the developing male urogenital system.The Journal of steroid biochemistry and molecular biology · 2011
   Review

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Why public health agencies cannot depend on good laboratory practices as a criterion for selecting data: the case of bisphenol A.2009
• Comment on
  Good laboratory practices and safety assessments.2009

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as