Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32685194›Full record

ReviewGlobal challenges (Hoboken, NJ)2020

Microplastics in the Environment: Much Ado about Nothing? A Debate.

Thomas Backhaus, Martin Wagner

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Global challenges (Hoboken, NJ), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Invisible but Insidious Effects of Microplastics.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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

2 authors.

Thomas BackhausDepartment of Biological and Environmental Sciences University of Gothenburg 40530 Gothenburg Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9643-1662
Martin WagnerDepartment of Biology Norwegian University of Science and Technology 7491 Trondheim Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4402-3234

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article documents a debate between the two authors on the issue of microplastics in the environment. It is sparked by a viewpoint published by G. Allen Burton, who argues that the risk of microplastics is overrated. The authors have started debating this notion on Twitter, but the format has quickly turned out to be too cumbersome to exchange arguments. It is thus decided to continue the conversation by exchanging letters published as preprints in roughly four-week intervals. In these contributions, a broad range of relevant issues are touched upon, including the differences in risk conceptions, risk communication in the attention economy, risk assessment in situations of scientific uncertainty, the need to test proper hypotheses, the problem of prioritizing environmental issues, the costs of action and inaction, the application of the precautionary principle or a strictly evidence-based approach for policy-making and, eventually, larger issues related to the Anthropocene. In hindsight, it is felt that this debate is rewarding because it made possible expressing and reflecting on the values and opinions in ways otherwise impossible in social media and standard scientific articles.

Indexed as

evidence‐based policiesmicroplasticsplastic pollutionprecautionary principlesrisk assessment

Identifiers

PMID32685194
PMCPMC7268194

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.