Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28884070›Full record

ArticleCurrent epidemiology reports2016

Contemporary Issues in Exposure Assessment Using Biomonitoring.

Antonia M Calafat

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current epidemiology reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing 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

35 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Development of Life Course Exposure Estimates Using Geospatial Data and Residence History.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Year-to-year variation in phthalate metabolites in the Midlife Women's Health Study.Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. 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

1 author.

Antonia M CalafatCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Hwy, MS F17, Atlanta, GA 30341, USA.

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In environmental epidemiology, use of biomonitoring (i.e., trace-level measurement of environmental chemicals or their metabolites in biospecimens) for exposure assessment has increased considerably in past decades. Although exposure biomarkers should reflect a person's exposure to the target chemicals (or their precursors) within a specific timeframe, timing, duration, and intensity of exposures are normally unknown and likely vary within the study period. Therefore, evaluating exposure beyond a single time point may require collecting more than one biospecimen. Of note, collection and sample processing procedures will impact integrity and usefulness of biospecimens. All of the above factors are fundamental to properly interpret biomonitoring data. We will discuss the relevance of the exposure assessment study protocol design to (a) ensure that biomonitoring specimens reflect the intended exposure, (b) consider the temporal variability of concentrations of the target biomarkers, and

Indexed as

BiomarkerExternal quality assessmentPoolsStandard reference materialVariability

Identifiers

PMID28884070
PMCPMC5584386

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.