ReviewEnvironmental health perspectives2011
Enhancing credibility of chemical safety studies: emerging consensus on key assessment criteria.
Review in Environmental health perspectives, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Instruments for assessing risk of bias and other methodological criteria of published animal studies: a systematic review.Environmental health perspectives · 2013Pooled it
- CRIME-Q-a unifying tool for critical appraisal of methodological (technical) quality, quality of reporting and risk of bias in animal research.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Article
- Safety of Safety Evaluation of Pesticides: developmental neurotoxicity of chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos-methyl.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2018Article
- FREE INVENTORY PLATFORM MANAGES CHEMICAL RISKS, ADDRESSES CHEMICAL ACCOUNTABILITY, AND MEASURES COST-EFFECTIVENESS.International journal of advances in science, engineering and technology · 2017Article
- A path forward in the debate over health impacts of endocrine disrupting chemicals.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2014Article
- Data disclosure for chemical evaluations.Environmental health perspectives · 2013Article
- Taking financial relationships into account when assessing research.Accountability in research · 2013Article
- Enhancing credibility of chemical safety studies: no consensus.Environmental health perspectives · 2011Article
- Conrad and Becker's "10 Criteria" fall short of addressing conflicts of interest in chemical safety studies.Environmental health perspectives · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWe examined the extent to which consensus exists on the criteria that should be used for assessing the credibility of a scientific work, regardless of its funding source, and explored how these criteria might be implemented. DATA SOURCES: Three publications, all presented at a session of the 2009 annual meeting of the Society for Risk Analysis, have proposed a range of criteria for evaluating the credibility of scientific studies. At least two other similar sets of criteria have recently been proposed elsewhere. DATA EXTRACTION/SYNTHESIS: In this article we review these criteria, highlight the commonalities among them, and integrate them into a list of 10 criteria. We also discuss issues inherent in any attempt to implement the criteria systematically.
conclusionsRecommendations by many scientists and policy experts converge on a finite list of criteria for assessing the credibility of a scientific study without regard to funding source. These criteria should be formalized through a consensus process or a governmental initiative that includes discussion and pilot application of a system for reproducibly implementing them. Formal establishment of such a system should enable the debate regarding chemical studies to move beyond funding issues and focus on scientific merit.
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.