Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29051457›Full record

ArticleToxics2017

Hydrophobic Sand Is a Non-Toxic Method of Urine Collection, Appropriate for Urinary Metal Analysis in the Rat.

Jessica F Hoffman, Vernieda B Vergara, Steven R Mog, John F Kalinich

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Toxics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 35% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jessica F HoffmanInternal Contamination and Metal Toxicity Program, Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute, Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, MD 20889, USA. jessica.hoffman@usuhs.edu.
Vernieda B VergaraInternal Contamination and Metal Toxicity Program, Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute, Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, MD 20889, USA. vernieda.vergara.ctr@usuhs.edu.
Steven R MogOffice of Food Additive Safety (OFAS), CFSAN/FDA/DHHS, College Park, MD 20740, USA. steven.mog@fda.hhs.gov.
John F KalinichInternal Contamination and Metal Toxicity Program, Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute, Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, MD 20889, USA. John.Kalinich@usuhs.edu.
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences · USCenter for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Hydrophobic sand is a relatively new method of urine collection in the rodent, comparable to the established method using a metabolic cage. Urine samples are often used in rodent research, especially for biomarkers of health changes after internal contamination from embedded metals, such as in a model of a military shrapnel wound. However, little research has been done on the potential interference of hydrophobic sand with urine metal concentrations either by contamination from the sand particulate, or adsorption of metals from the urine. We compare urine collected from rats using the metabolic cage method and the hydrophobic sand method for differences in metal concentration of common urinary metals, and examine physical properties of the sand material for potential sources of contamination. We found minimal risk of internal contamination of the rat by hydrophobic sand, and no interference of the sand with several common metals of interest (cobalt, strontium, copper, and manganese), although we advise caution in studies of aluminum in urine.

Indexed as

internal contaminationmetal contaminationrodenturine

Identifiers

PMID29051457
PMCPMC5750553
OpenAlexW2763365484

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.