ArticleEnvironmental health perspectives2017
Evaluating the Impact of the U.S. National Toxicology Program: A Case Study on Hexavalent Chromium.
Article in Environmental health perspectives, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- LDH-Based "Smart" Films for Corrosion Sensing and Protection.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Epigenetic alterations of CXCL5 in Cr(VI)-induced carcinogenesis.The Science of the total environment · 2022Article
- Efficient removal of chromate ions from aqueous solution using a highly cost-effective ferric coordinated [3-(2-aminoethylamino)propyl]trimethoxysilane-MCM-41 adsorbent.RSC advances · 2021Article
- Assessment of immunotoxicity in female Fischer 344/N and Sprague Dawley rats and female BJournal of immunotoxicology · 2017Article
- Mitochondrial Biogenesis in Response to Chromium (VI) Toxicity in Human Liver Cells.International journal of molecular sciences · 2017Article
- Zebrafish in Toxicology and Environmental Health.Current topics in developmental biology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEvaluating the impact of federally funded research with a broad, methodical, and objective approach is important to ensure that public funds advance the mission of federal agencies.
objectivesWe aimed to develop a methodical approach that would yield a broad assessment of National Toxicology Program's (NTP's) effectiveness across multiple sectors and demonstrate the utility of the approach through a case study.
methodsA conceptual model was developed with defined activities, outputs (products), and outcomes (proximal, intermediate, distal) and applied retrospectively to NTP's research on hexavalent chromium (CrVI). Proximal outcomes were measured by counting views of and requests for NTP's products by external stakeholders. Intermediate outcomes were measured by bibliometric analysis. Distal outcomes were assessed through Web and LexisNexis searches for documents related to legislation or regulation changes.
resultsThe approach identified awareness of NTP's work on CrVI by external stakeholders (proximal outcome) and citations of NTP's research in scientific publications, reports, congressional testimonies, and legal and policy documents (intermediate outcome). NTP's research was key to the nation's first-ever drinking water standard for CrVI adopted by California in 2014 (distal outcome). By applying this approach to a case study, the utility and limitations of the approach were identified, including challenges to evaluating the outcomes of a research program.
conclusionsThis study identified a broad and objective approach for assessing NTP's effectiveness, including methodological needs for more thorough and efficient impact assessments in the future. Citation: Xie Y, Holmgren S, Andrews DMK, Wolfe MS. 2017. Evaluating the impact of the U.S. National Toxicology Program: a case study on hexavalent chromium. Environ Health Perspect 125:181-188; http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/EHP21.
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.