ArticleEnvironmental health : a global access science source2013
Science and policy on endocrine disrupters must not be mixed: a reply to a "common sense" intervention by toxicology journal editors.
Article in Environmental health : a global access science source, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Applying a modified systematic review and integrated assessment framework (SYRINA) - a case study on triphenyl phosphate.Environmental science. Processes & impacts · 2024Pooled it
- A proposed framework for the systematic review and integrated assessment (SYRINA) of endocrine disrupting chemicals.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2016Pooled it
- Using systematic reviews for hazard and risk assessment of endocrine disrupting chemicals.Reviews in endocrine & metabolic disorders · 2015Pooled it
- Endocrine disrupting chemicals in the pathogenesis of hypospadias; developmental and toxicological perspectives.Current research in toxicology · 2021Review
- Agrochemicals with estrogenic endocrine disrupting properties: Lessons Learned?Molecular and cellular endocrinology · 2020Review
- Thresholds and Endocrine Disruptors: An Endocrine Society Policy Perspective.Journal of the Endocrine Society · 2020Article
- Fetal androgen exposure is a determinant of adult male metabolic health.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- How can the integrity of occupational and environmental health research be maintained in the presence of conflicting interests?Environmental health : a global access science source · 2019Article
- Endocrine disruptors and the future of toxicology testing - lessons from CLARITY-BPA.Nature reviews. Endocrinology · 2019Review
- Endocrine disrupting chemicals: Impact on human health, wildlife and the environment.Science progress · 2019Review
- Evidence of the Possible Harm of Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals in Humans: Ongoing Debates and Key Issues.Endocrinology and metabolism (Seoul, Korea) · 2018Review
- Is it time to reassess current safety standards for glyphosate-based herbicides?Journal of epidemiology and community health · 2017Review
- Metabolism disrupting chemicals and metabolic disorders.Reproductive toxicology (Elmsford, N.Y.) · 2017Review
- Scientific principles for the identification of endocrine-disrupting chemicals: a consensus statement.Archives of toxicology · 2017Article
- Peer-reviewed and unbiased research, rather than 'sound science', should be used to evaluate endocrine-disrupting chemicals.Journal of epidemiology and community health · 2016Review
- Article
- Methodological issues in human studies of endocrine disrupting chemicals.Reviews in endocrine & metabolic disorders · 2015Review
- Assessing the carcinogenic potential of low-dose exposures to chemical mixtures in the environment: the challenge ahead.Carcinogenesis · 2015Review
- Associations of plasma concentrations of dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene and polychlorinated biphenyls with prostate cancer: a case-control study in Guadeloupe (French West Indies).Environmental health perspectives · 2015Article
- Ethics, morality, and conflicting interests: how questionable professional integrity in some scientists supports global corporate influence in public health.International journal of occupational and environmental health · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
41 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The "common sense" intervention by toxicology journal editors regarding proposed European Union endocrine disrupter regulations ignores scientific evidence and well-established principles of chemical risk assessment. In this commentary, endocrine disrupter experts express their concerns about a recently published, and is in our considered opinion inaccurate and factually incorrect, editorial that has appeared in several journals in toxicology. Some of the shortcomings of the editorial are discussed in detail. We call for a better founded scientific debate which may help to overcome a polarisation of views detrimental to reaching a consensus about scientific foundations for endocrine disrupter regulation in the EU.
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.