Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27108591›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental health perspectives2016

Scientific Issues Relevant to Setting Regulatory Criteria to Identify Endocrine-Disrupting Substances in the European Union.

Rémy Slama, Jean-Pierre Bourguignon, Barbara Demeneix, Richard Ivell, Giancarlo Panzica, Andreas Kortenkamp, R Thomas Zoeller

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental health perspectives, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Assessment of occupational exposure to pesticide mixtures with endocrine-disrupting activity.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2019
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.

Rémy SlamaTeam of Environmental Epidemiology, IAB (Institute of Advanced Biosciences), Inserm, CNRS, University Grenoble-Alpes, IAB joint research center, Grenoble (La Tronche), France.
Jean-Pierre Bourguignon
Barbara Demeneix
Richard Ivell
Giancarlo Panzica
Andreas Kortenkamp
R Thomas Zoeller
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FRBrunel University of London · GBNeuroscience Institute · ITUniversity of Liège · BEUniversity of Massachusetts Amherst · USUniversity of Nottingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEndocrine disruptors (EDs) are defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as exogenous compounds or mixtures that alter function(s) of the endocrine system and consequently cause adverse effects in an intact organism, or its progeny, or (sub)populations. European regulations on pesticides, biocides, cosmetics, and industrial chemicals require the European Commission to establish scientific criteria to define EDs.

objectivesWe address the scientific relevance of four options for the identification of EDs proposed by the European Commission. DISCUSSION: Option 1, which does not define EDs and leads to using interim criteria unrelated to the WHO definition of EDs, is not relevant. Options 2 and 3 rely on the WHO definition of EDs, which is widely accepted by the scientific community, with option 3 introducing additional categories based on the strength of evidence (suspected EDs and endocrine-active substances). Option 4 adds potency to the WHO definition, as a decision criterion. We argue that potency is dependent on the adverse effect considered and is scientifically ambiguous, and note that potency is not used as a criterion to define other particularly hazardous substances such as carcinogens and reproductive toxicants. The use of potency requires a context that goes beyond hazard identification and corresponds to risk characterization, in which potency (or, more relevantly, the dose-response function) is combined with exposure levels.

conclusionsThere is scientific agreement regarding the adequacy of the WHO definition of EDs. The potency concept is not relevant to the identification of particularly serious hazards such as EDs. As is common practice for carcinogens, mutagens, and reproductive toxicants, a multi-level classification of ED based on the WHO definition, and not considering potency, would be relevant (corresponding to option 3 proposed by the European Commission). CITATION: Slama R, Bourguignon JP, Demeneix B, Ivell R, Panzica G, Kortenkamp A, Zoeller RT. 2016. Scientific issues relevant to setting regulatory criteria to identify endocrine disrupting substances in the European Union. Environ Health Perspect 124:1497-1503; http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/EHP217.

Identifiers

PMID27108591
PMCPMC5047779
OpenAlexW2342877679

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.