ReviewJournal of epidemiology and community health2016
Peer-reviewed and unbiased research, rather than 'sound science', should be used to evaluate endocrine-disrupting chemicals.
Review in Journal of epidemiology and community health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- What do people need to know about endocrine disrupting chemicals and health? A mental models approach using focus groups of community-engaged research teams and a national survey.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Metals in the human liver: An underappreciated risk factor of hepatic insulin resistance and associated pathophysiology.Environmental pollution (Barking, Essex : 1987) · 2025Review
- Exposure to Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers and Phthalates in China: A Disease Burden and Cost Analysis.Toxics · 2022Article
- Article
- Trans-disciplinary diagnosis for an in-depth reform of regulatory expertise in the field of environmental toxicology and security.Toxicological research · 2021Review
- Assessing the Public Health Implications of the Food Preservative Propylparaben: Has This Chemical Been Safely Used for Decades.Current environmental health reports · 2021Review
- The new kids on the block: Emerging obesogens.Advances in pharmacology (San Diego, Calif.) · 2021Review
- Agrochemicals with estrogenic endocrine disrupting properties: Lessons Learned?Molecular and cellular endocrinology · 2020Review
- Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals in Human Fetal Growth.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Review
- There are good clinical, scientific, and social reasons to strengthen links between biomedical and environmental research.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2019Article
- Bisphenol A co-exposure effects: a key factor in understanding BPA's complex mechanism and health outcomes.Critical reviews in toxicology · 2019Review
- Legitimizing Values in Regulatory Science.Environmental health perspectives · 2019Article
- Rationale for Environmental Hygiene towards global protection of fetuses and young children from adverse lifestyle factors.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2018Article
- Is it time to reassess current safety standards for glyphosate-based herbicides?Journal of epidemiology and community health · 2017Review
- The mouse mammary gland as a sentinel organ: distinguishing 'control' populations with diverse environmental histories.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2017Article
- Induction of oxidative stress by bisphenol A and its pleiotropic effects.Environmental and molecular mutagenesis · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Evidence increasingly confirms that synthetic chemicals disrupt the endocrine system and contribute to disease and disability across the lifespan. Despite a United Nations Environment Programme/WHO report affirmed by over 100 countries at the Fourth International Conference on Chemicals Management, 'manufactured doubt' continues to be cast as a cloud over rigorous, peer-reviewed and independently funded scientific data. This study describes the sources of doubt and their social costs, and suggested courses of action by policymakers to prevent disease and disability. The problem is largely based on the available data, which are all too limited. Rigorous testing programmes should not simply focus on oestrogen, androgen and thyroid. Tests should have proper statistical power. 'Good laboratory practice' (GLP) hardly represents a proper or even gold standard for laboratory studies of endocrine disruption. Studies should be evaluated with regard to the contamination of negative controls, responsiveness to positive controls and dissection techniques. Flaws in many GLP studies have been identified, yet regulatory agencies rely on these flawed studies. Peer-reviewed and unbiased research, rather than 'sound science', should be used to evaluate endocrine-disrupting chemicals.
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.