Scientifically unfounded precaution drives European Commission's recommendations on EDC regulation, while defying common sense, well-established science and risk assessment principles.

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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

1. Using systematic reviews for hazard and risk assessment of endocrine disrupting chemicals.Reviews in endocrine & metabolic disorders · 2015
   Pooled it
2. Acute and chronic effects of exposure to the juvenile hormone analog fenoxycarb during sexual reproduction in Daphnia magna.Ecotoxicology (London, England) · 2018
   Article
3. Metabolism disrupting chemicals and metabolic disorders.Reproductive toxicology (Elmsford, N.Y.) · 2017
   Review
4. Scientific Issues Relevant to Setting Regulatory Criteria to Identify Endocrine-Disrupting Substances in the European Union.Environmental health perspectives · 2016
   Article
5. Associations of plasma concentrations of dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene and polychlorinated biphenyls with prostate cancer: a case-control study in Guadeloupe (French West Indies).Environmental health perspectives · 2015
   Article
6. Policy decisions on endocrine disruptors should be based on science across disciplines: a response to Dietrich et al.Endocrinology · 2013
   Article
7. Science and policy on endocrine disrupters must not be mixed: a reply to a "common sense" intervention by toxicology journal editors.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2013
   Article
8. Transparency and translation of science in a modern world.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2013
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Commented on by
  Policy decisions on endocrine disruptors should be based on science across disciplines: a response to Dietrich et al.2013
• Commented on by
  Policy decisions on endocrine disruptors should be based on science across disciplines: a response to Dietrich et al.2013
• Commented on by
  Policy decisions on endocrine disruptors should be based on science across disciplines: a response to Dietrich et al.2013
• Commented on by
  Policy decisions on endocrine disruptors should be based on science across disciplines: a response to Dietrich et al.2013

Authors and funding

19 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as