Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30607717›Full record

ReviewAmbio2019

The transition to non-lead sporting ammunition and fishing weights: Review of progress and barriers to implementation.

Vernon G Thomas, Niels Kanstrup, Anthony D Fox

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Ambio, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Vernon G ThomasDepartment of Integrative Biology, College of Biological Science, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, N1G 2W1, Canada. vthomas@uoguelph.ca.
Niels KanstrupDepartment of Bioscience, Aarhus University, Kalø, Grenåvej 14, 8410, Rønde, Denmark.
Anthony D FoxDepartment of Bioscience, Aarhus University, Kalø, Grenåvej 14, 8410, Rønde, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This review presents evidence of lead exposure and toxicity to wildlife and humans from spent shotgun and rifle ammunition and fishing weights, and the barriers and bridges to completing the transition to non-lead products. Despite the international availability of effective non-lead substitutes, and that more jurisdictions are adopting suitable policies and regulations, a broader transition to non-lead alternatives is prevented because resolution remains divided among disparate human user constituencies. Progress has occurred only where evidence is most compelling or where a responsible public authority with statutory powers has managed to change mindsets in the wider public interest. Arguments opposing lead bans are shown to lack validity. Differing national regulations impede progress, requiring analysis to achieve better regulation. Evidence that lead bans have reduced wildlife exposure should be used more to promote sustainable hunting and fishing. Evidence of the lead contribution from hunted game to human exposure should shape policy and regulation to end lead ammunition use. The Special Issue presents evidence that a transition to non-lead products is both warranted and feasible.

Indexed as

Animals, WildFirearmsAnimalsHumansPolicySeafoodBulletsEffectivenessExposureRegulationsShotSocio-politics

Identifiers

PMID30607717
PMCPMC6675838

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.