ArticleEnvironmental health : a global access science source2012
Policy relevant results from an expert elicitation on the human health risks of decabromodiphenyl ether (decaBDE) and hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD).
Article in Environmental health : a global access science source, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Application of social media in the environment and health professional community.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2012Article
- How can scientists bring research to use: the HENVINET experience.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2012Article
- Policy relevant results from an expert elicitation on the health risks of phthalates.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 7 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimApply a recently developed expert elicitation procedure to evaluate the state of the current knowledge of the two brominated flame retardants (BFRs) most commonly used today; decabromo-diphenyl ether (decaBDE) and hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) and their potential impact on human health in order to support policy considerations. This expert elicitation was organized by the HENVINET (Health and Environment Network) Consortium.
methodThe HENVINET expert elicitation procedure that was used in the evaluations of decaBDE and HBCD is a rapid assessment tool aimed at highlighting areas of agreement and areas of disagreement on knowledge-related key issues for environment and health policy decision making.
resultsThe outcome of the expert consultation on BFRs was concrete expert advice for policy makers with specific priorities for further action made clear for both stakeholders and policy makers. The experts were not in agreement whether or not the knowledge currently available on decaBDE or HBCD is sufficient to justify policy actions, but most experts considered that enough data already exists to support a ban or restriction on the use of these compounds. All experts agreed on the necessity of more research on the compounds. Priority issues for further research were, among others:• more studies on the extent of human exposure to the compounds.• more studies on the fate and concentration in the human body of the compounds.
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.