Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34758162›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental toxicology and chemistry2021

Coral Ecotoxicological Data Evaluation for the Environmental Safety Assessment of Ultraviolet Filters.

Emily E Burns, Iain A Davies

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental toxicology and chemistry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 38% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Emily E BurnsPersonal Care Products Council, Washington, DC, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4236-6409
Iain A DaviesPersonal Care Products Council, Washington, DC, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is growing interest in the environmental safety of ultraviolet (UV) filters found in cosmetic and personal care products (CPCPs). The CPCP industry is assessing appropriate environmental risk assessment (ERA) methods to conduct robust environmental safety assessments for these ingredients. Relevant and reliable data are needed for ERA, particularly when the assessment is supporting regulatory decision-making. In the present study, we apply a data evaluation approach to incorporate nonstandard toxicity data into the ERA process through an expanded range of reliability scores over commonly used approaches (e.g., Klimisch scores). The method employs an upfront screening followed by a data quality assessment based largely on the Criteria for Reporting and Evaluating Ecotoxicity Data (CRED) approach. The method was applied in a coral case study in which UV filter toxicity data was evaluated to identify data points potentially suitable for higher tier and/or regulatory ERA. This is an optimal case study because there are no standard coral toxicity test methods, and UV filter bans are being enacted based on findings reported in the current peer-reviewed data set. Eight studies comprising nine assays were identified; four of the assays did not pass the initial screening assessment. None of the remaining five assays received a high enough reliability score (R

Indexed as

AnthozoaEcotoxicologyAnimalsReproducibility of ResultsRisk AssessmentToxicity TestsCoralCosmetic and personal care productsData reliabilityEcotoxicologyEnvironmental risk assessment

Identifiers

PMID34758162
PMCPMC9299478
OpenAlexW3214168516

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.