SIN List criticism based on misunderstandings.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Assessment of the toxicity and carcinogenicity of double-walled carbon nanotubes in the rat lung after intratracheal instillation: a two-year study.Particle and fibre toxicology · 2022
   Article
2. Substance in nanomaterials regulation.Nature nanotechnology · 2021
   Article
3. Ultrasound-Responsive Nanocarriers in Cancer Treatment: A Review.ACS pharmacology & translational science · 2021
   Review

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Carbon nanotubes added to the SIN List as a nanomaterial of Very High Concern.2020
• Comment on
  Grouping all carbon nanotubes into a single substance category is scientifically unjustified.2020
• Comment on
  Banning carbon nanotubes would be scientifically unjustified and damaging to innovation.2020

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as