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

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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Endocrine disrupting chemicals in the pathogenesis of hypospadias; developmental and toxicological perspectives.Current research in toxicology · 2021
   Review
2. Perinatal Exposure to Methoxychlor Affects Reproductive Function and Sexual Behavior in Mice.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2020
   Article
3. Evidence of the Possible Harm of Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals in Humans: Ongoing Debates and Key Issues.Endocrinology and metabolism (Seoul, Korea) · 2018
   Review
4. Current concepts in neuroendocrine disruption.General and comparative endocrinology · 2014
   Review

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Scientifically unfounded precaution drives European Commission's recommendations on EDC regulation, while defying common sense, well-established science and risk assessment principles.2013

Authors and funding

33 authors.

Funding

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as