Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28744350›Full record

ReviewToxicological research2017

Alternatives to

Miri Lee, Jee-Hyun Hwang, Kyung-Min Lim

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Toxicological research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

38 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Innovative formulations for the ocular delivery of coenzyme Q10.Drug delivery and translational research · 2025
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Heliyon · 2024
    Article
  12. An Assessment of the Ocular Toxicity of Two Major Sources of Environmental Exposure.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Tissue Engineered Mini-Cornea Model for Eye Irritation Test.Tissue engineering and regenerative medicine · 2023
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors.

Miri LeeCollege of Pharmacy, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Korea.
Jee-Hyun HwangCollege of Pharmacy, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Korea.
Kyung-Min LimCollege of Pharmacy, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Human eyes and skin are frequently exposed to chemicals accidentally or on purpose due to their external location. Therefore, chemicals are required to undergo the evaluation of the ocular and dermal irritancy for their safe handling and use before release into the market. Draize rabbit eye and skin irritation test developed in 1944, has been a gold standard test which was enlisted as OECD TG 404 and OECD TG 405 but it has been criticized with respect to animal welfare due to invasive and cruel procedure. To replace it, diverse alternatives have been developed: (i) For Draize eye irritation test, organotypic assay,

Indexed as

3D reconstructed human cornea-like epithelium (RhCE) models3D reconstructed human epithelium (RhE) modelsAlternative to animal testsEye irritationSkin irritation

Identifiers

PMID28744350
PMCPMC5523559

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.