Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23228957›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental health perspectives2013

Data disclosure for chemical evaluations.

Randall Lutter, Craig Barrow, Christopher J Borgert, James W Conrad, Debra Edwards, Allan Felsot

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental health perspectives, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Access to chemical data used in regulatory decision making.Environmental health perspectives · 2013
    Article
  3. Access to chemical data: Lutter et al. respond.Environmental health perspectives · 2013
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Randall LutterIndependent Consultant, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. rwlutter@gmail.com
Craig Barrow
Christopher J Borgert
James W Conrad
Debra Edwards
Allan Felsot

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPublic disclosure of scientific data used by the government to make regulatory decisions for chemicals is a practical step that can enhance public confidence in the scientific basis of such decisions.

objectivesWe reviewed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) current practices regarding disclosure of data underlying regulatory and policy decisions involving chemicals, including pesticides. We sought to identify additional opportunities for the U.S. EPA to disclose data and, more generally, to promote broad access to data it uses, regardless of origin. DISCUSSION: We recommend that when the U.S. EPA proposes a regulatory determination or other policy decision that relies on scientific research, it should provide sufficient underlying raw data and information about methods to enable reanalysis and attempts to independently reproduce the work, including the sensitivity of results to alternative analyses. This recommendation applies regardless of who conducted the work. If the U.S. EPA is unable to provide such transparency, it should state whether it had full access to all underlying data and methods. A timely version of submitted data cleared of information about confidential business matters and personal privacy should fully meet the standards of transparency described below, including public access sufficient for others to undertake an independent reanalysis.

conclusionReliable chemical evaluation is essential for protecting public health and the environment and for ensuring availability of useful chemicals under appropriate conditions. Permitting qualified researchers to endeavor to independently reproduce the analyses used in regulatory determinations of pesticides and other chemicals would increase confidence in the scientific basis of such determinations.

Indexed as

DisclosureEnvironmental PollutantsUnited StatesUnited States Environmental Protection AgencyEnvironmental Pollutants

Identifiers

PMID23228957
PMCPMC3569678

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.