ArticleParticle and fibre toxicology2020
Comment on Saber et al. (2019), "Commentary: the chronic inhalation study in rats for assessing lung cancer risk may be better than its reputation".
Article in Particle and fibre toxicology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Comment on
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In their Commentary Saber et al. (Part Fibre Toxicol 16: 44, 2019) argue that chronic inhalation studies in rats can be used for assessing the lung cancer risk of insoluble nanomaterials. The authors make several significant errors in their interpretation and representation of the underlying science. In this Letter to the Editor we discuss these inaccuracies to correct the scientific record. When the science is recounted accurately it does not support Saber et al's statements and conclusions.
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.