Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28934728›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental health perspectives2017

Has Toxicity Testing Moved into the 21st Century? A Survey and Analysis of Perceptions in the Field of Toxicology.

Virginia Zaunbrecher, Elizabeth Beryt, Daniela Parodi, Donatello Telesca, Joseph Doherty, Timothy Malloy, Patrick Allard

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

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 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Bridging the Data Gap FromFrontiers in public health · 2018
    Review
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

7 authors.

Virginia ZaunbrecherSustainable Technology and Policy Program, University of California, Los Angeles , Los Angeles, California, USA.
Elizabeth BerytLuskin School of Public Affairs, University of California, Los Angeles , Los Angeles, California, USA.
Daniela ParodiInstitute for Society and Genetics, University of California, Los Angeles , Los Angeles, California, USA.
Donatello TelescaDepartment of Biostatistics, UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles , Los Angeles, California, USA.
Joseph DohertySchool of Law, University of California, Los Angeles , Los Angeles, California, USA.
Timothy MalloySustainable Technology and Policy Program, University of California, Los Angeles , Los Angeles, California, USA.
Patrick AllardSustainable Technology and Policy Program, University of California, Los Angeles , Los Angeles, California, USA.

Funding

UCLA SPORE in Brain CancerP50CA211015 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI Yvonne Yu-Hsuan Chen · 2017 to 2026
$25.2M
NCI NIH HHS P50 CA211015
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTen years ago, leaders in the field of toxicology called for a transformation of the discipline and a shift from primarily relying on traditional animal testing to incorporating advances in biotechnology and predictive methodologies into alternative testing strategies (ATS). Governmental agencies and academic and industry partners initiated programs to support such a transformation, but a decade later, the outcomes of these efforts are not well understood.

objectivesWe aimed to assess the use of ATS and the perceived barriers and drivers to their adoption by toxicologists and by others working in, or closely linked with, the field of toxicology.

methodsWe surveyed 1,381 toxicologists and experts in associated fields regarding the viability and use of ATS and the perceived barriers and drivers of ATS for a range of applications. We performed ranking, hierarchical clustering, and correlation analyses of the survey data.

resultsMany respondents indicated that they were already using ATS, or believed that ATS were already viable approaches, for toxicological assessment of one or more end points in their primary area of interest or concern (26-86%, depending on the specific ATS/application pair). However, the proportions of respondents reporting use of ATS in the previous 12 mo were smaller (4.5-41%). Concern about regulatory acceptance was the most commonly cited factor inhibiting the adoption of ATS, and a variety of technical concerns were also cited as significant barriers to ATS viability. The factors most often cited as playing a significant role (currently or in the future) in driving the adoption of ATS were the need for expedited toxicology information, the need for reduced toxicity testing costs, demand by regulatory agencies, and ethical or moral concerns.

conclusionsOur findings indicate that the transformation of the field of toxicology is partly implemented, but significant barriers to acceptance and adoption remain. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP1435.

Indexed as

AnimalsHumansRisk AssessmentSurveys and QuestionnairesToxicity TestsToxicology

Identifiers

PMID28934728
PMCPMC5783667

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.