Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27235322›Full record

ArticleToxicologic pathology2016

Scientific and Regulatory Policy Committee Points to Consider Review: Inclusion of Reproductive and Pathology End Points for Assessment of Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity in Pharmaceutical Drug Development.

Wendy G Halpern, Mehrdad Ameri, Christopher J Bowman, Michael R Elwell, Michael L Mirsky, Julian Oliver, Karen S Regan, Amera K Remick, Vicki L Sutherland, Kary E Thompson and 3 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Toxicologic pathology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
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

13 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.

Wendy G HalpernGenetech, South San Francisco, California, USA halpern.wendy@gene.com.
Mehrdad AmeriGlaxoSmithKline, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Christopher J BowmanPfizer, Groton, Connecticut, USA.
Michael R ElwellCovance, Chantilly, Virginia, USA.
Michael L MirskyPfizer, Groton, Connecticut, USA.
Julian OliverIncyte, Wilmington, Delaware, USA.
Karen S ReganRegan Path/Tox Services, Ashland, Ohio, USA.
Amera K RemickWIL Research, a Charles River Company, Hillsborough, North Carolina, USA.
Vicki L SutherlandNIEHS/NTP, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.
Kary E ThompsonBristol-Myers Squibb, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.
Claudine TremblayCharles River Laboratories, Senneville, Quebec, Canada.
Midori YoshidaFood Safety Commission of Japan, Minato-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
Lindsay TomlinsonPfizer, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Pfizer (United States) · USAshland (United States) · USCanadian Nuclear Laboratories · CACovance (United States) · USGlaxoSmithKline (United States) · USIncyte (United States) · USNational Institute of Environmental Health Sciences · USThe Bristol-Myers Squibb Children's Hospital · US

Funding

Intramural NIH HHS Z99 ES999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Standard components of nonclinical toxicity testing for novel pharmaceuticals include clinical and anatomic pathology, as well as separate evaluation of effects on reproduction and development to inform clinical development and labeling. General study designs in regulatory guidances do not specifically mandate use of pathology or reproductive end points across all study types; thus, inclusion and use of these end points are variable. The Scientific and Regulatory Policy Committee of the Society of Toxicologic Pathology (STP) formed a Working Group to assess the current guidelines and practices on the use of reproductive, anatomic pathology, and clinical pathology end points in general, reproductive, and developmental toxicology studies. The Working Group constructed a survey sent to pathologists and reproductive toxicologists, and responses from participating organizations were collected through the STP for evaluation by the Working Group. The regulatory context, relevant survey results, and collective experience of the Working Group are discussed and provide the basis of each assessment by study type. Overall, the current practice of including specific end points on a case-by-case basis is considered appropriate. Points to consider are summarized for inclusion of reproductive end points in general toxicity studies and for the informed use of pathology end points in reproductive and developmental toxicity studies.

Indexed as

AnimalsDrug Evaluation, PreclinicalGuideline AdherenceHumansPathology, ClinicalToxicity TestsToxicologyclinical pathologydevelopmental pathologypreclinical research and developmentreproductive systemsafety assessmentteratologytoxicologic pathology

Identifiers

PMID27235322
PMCPMC4979743
OpenAlexW2403580980

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.