SynthesisReviews in endocrine & metabolic disorders2015
Using systematic reviews for hazard and risk assessment of endocrine disrupting chemicals.
Synthesis in Reviews in endocrine & metabolic disorders, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The epidemiologic evidence linking prenatal and postnatal exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals with male reproductive disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Human reproduction update · 2016Pooled 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
- Article
- Predicting the Activity of Unidentified Chemicals in Complementary Bioassays from the HRMS Data to Pinpoint Potential Endocrine Disruptors.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2024Article
- Article
- Agrochemicals with estrogenic endocrine disrupting properties: Lessons Learned?Molecular and cellular endocrinology · 2020Review
- Identification of Linkages between EDCs in Personal Care Products and Breast Cancer through Data Integration Combined with Gene Network Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 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
- Nonmonotonic Dose-Response Curves Occur in Dose Ranges That Are Relevant to Regulatory Decision-Making.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis SocietyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The possibility that endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) in our environment contribute to hormonally related effects and diseases observed in human and wildlife populations has caused concern among decision makers and researchers alike. EDCs challenge principles traditionally applied in chemical risk assessment and the identification and assessment of these compounds has been a much debated topic during the last decade. State of the science reports and risk assessments of potential EDCs have been criticized for not using systematic and transparent approaches in the evaluation of evidence. In the fields of medicine and health care, systematic review methodologies have been developed and used to enable objectivity and transparency in the evaluation of scientific evidence for decision making. Lately, such approaches have also been promoted for use in the environmental health sciences and risk assessment of chemicals. Systematic review approaches could provide a tool for improving the evaluation of evidence for decision making regarding EDCs, e.g. by enabling systematic and transparent use of academic research data in this process. In this review we discuss the advantages and challenges of applying systematic review methodology in the identification and assessment of EDCs.
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.