Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34017255›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in pharmacology2021

Giang Huong Ta, Ching-Feng Weng, Max K Leong

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. SkinSensPred as a Promising in Silico Tool for Integrated Testing Strategy on Skin Sensitization.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Giang Huong TaDepartment of Chemistry, National Dong Hwa University, Shoufeng, Taiwan.
Ching-Feng WengDepartment of Basic Medical Science, Institute of Respiratory Disease, Xiamen Medical College, Xiamen, China.
Max K LeongDepartment of Chemistry, National Dong Hwa University, Shoufeng, Taiwan.
National Dong Hwa University · TWXiamen Medical College

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Skin direct contact with chemical or physical substances is predisposed to allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), producing various allergic reactions, namely rash, blister, or itchy, in the contacted skin area. ACD can be triggered by various extremely complicated adverse outcome pathways (AOPs) remains to be causal for biosafety warrant. As such, commercial products such as ointments or cosmetics can fulfill the topically safe requirements in animal and non-animal models including allergy. Europe, nevertheless, has banned animal tests for the safety evaluations of cosmetic ingredients since 2013, followed by other countries. A variety of non-animal

Indexed as

animal test methodshuman test methodsin chemico test methodsin silico modelsnon-animal test methodsskin sensitization

Identifiers

PMID34017255
PMCPMC8129647
OpenAlexW3159492126

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.