ArticleEnvironmental research2017
Quantitative meta-analytic approaches for the systematic synthesis of data and hazard identification: A case study of decreased pain sensitivity due to trimethylbenzene exposure.
Article in Environmental research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Traditionally, human health risk assessments have relied on qualitative approaches for hazard identification, which involves weight of evidence determinations that integrate evidence across multiple studies. Recently, the National Research Council has recommended the development of quantitative approaches for evidence integration, including the application of meta-analyses, to help summarize and evaluate the results of a systematic review. In the meta-analytic approach, a pooled effect size is calculated after consideration of multiple potential confounding factors in order to determine whether the entire database under consideration indicates a chemical is a hazard. The following case-study applies qualitative and quantitative approaches to determine whether trimethylbenzene (TMB) isomers represent a neurotoxic hazard, specifically focusing on pain sensitivity. Following a thorough literature search, the only pain sensitivity studies available for TMBs initially seem discordant in their results: effects on pain sensitivity are seen immediately after termination of exposure, appear to resolve 24h after exposure, and then reappear 50 days later following foot-shock. Qualitative consideration of toxicological and toxicokinetic characteristics of the TMB isomers suggests that the observed differences between studies are likely due to testing time and the application of external stressors. Meta-analyses and -regressions support this conclusion: when all studies are included and possible confounders (isomer, testing time, laboratory, etc.) are accounted for, the pooled effect sizes are statistically significant, thus supporting that TMBs are a possible neurotoxic hazard to human health. Ultimately, this case study demonstrates how qualitative and quantitative methods can be combined to provide a robust hazard identification analysis by incorporating more of the available information.
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.