ArticleArchives of toxicology2019
Integration of epidemiological findings with mechanistic evidence in regulatory pesticide risk assessment: EFSA experiences.
Article in Archives of toxicology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Cancer and occupational exposure to pesticides: an umbrella review.International archives of occupational and environmental health · 2021Pooled it
- The impact, mechanisms and prevention strategies of environmental endocrine disruptors on male reproductive health.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Review
- Evaluation of Metabolism of a Defined Pesticide Mixture through Multiple In Vitro Liver Models.Toxics · 2022Article
- Untargeted metabolomics as a hypothesis-generation tool in plant protection product discovery: Highlighting the potential of trehalose and glycerol metabolism of fungal conidiospores as novel targets.Metabolomics : Official journal of the Metabolomic Society · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Toxicological risk assessment of plant protection products (PPP) is currently carried out with the principal input from regulatory toxicology studies following OECD test guidelines, with little input from epidemiological data. An EFSA-commissioned systematic review of pesticide epidemiological studies (Ntzani et al. in Literature review on epidemiological studies linking exposure to pesticides and health effects. EFSA supporting publication 2013:EN-497, 2013) revealed statistically significant associations, among others, between pesticide exposures, and Parkinson's disease and childhood leukemia. Thereafter, EFSA launched a project with a mandate for the plant protection products and their residues (PPR) Panel to set the ground for the use of epidemiological data in the risk assessment of pesticides, as requested by Regulation (EC) 1107/2009. The project culminated with the publication of two EFSA's scientific opinions on the potential contribution of experimental investigations and epidemiological studies in PPP risk assessment and with the scientific conference held on 20 November 2017, in Parma, Italy. The application of modern methodologies in exposure assessment, toxicology and epidemiology would improve the pesticide risk assessment process and support a mechanistic shift for the integration of these three disciplines under a novel paradigm in risk assessment. The application of the adverse outcome pathway (AOP) conceptual framework to this approach would contribute to gain insight into the biological plausibility of a hazard identified in epidemiological or experimental studies and would inform an Integrated Approach to Testing and Assessment (IATA) within a regulatory context.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31053889What 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.