ArticleJournal of applied toxicology : JAT2018
A call for action: Improve reporting of research studies to increase the scientific basis for regulatory decision-making.
Article in Journal of applied toxicology : JAT, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Stakeholders' perspectives and use of web-based knowledge support for environmental information on pharmaceuticals.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2023Article
- Evaluating reliability and risk of bias of in vivo animal data for risk assessment of chemicals - Exploring the use of the SciRAP tool in a systematic review context.Environment international · 2021Article
- Article
- Reliability and relevance evaluations of REACH data.Toxicology research · 2019Article
- Evidence of citation bias in the pesticide ecotoxicology literature.Ecotoxicology (London, England) · 2018Article
- A call for action: Improve reporting of research studies to increase the scientific basis for regulatory decision-making.Journal of applied toxicology : JAT · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
28 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This is a call for action to scientific journals to introduce reporting requirements for toxicity and ecotoxicity studies. Such reporting requirements will support the use of peer-reviewed research studies in regulatory decision-making. Moreover, this could improve the reliability and reproducibility of published studies in general and make better use of the resources spent in research.
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.