Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35137796›Full record

ReviewEinstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2022

A review of alternative methods to the use of animals in safety evaluation of cosmetics.

Barbarah Helena Nabarretti, Roberta Balansin Rigon, Jonny Burga-Sánchez, Gislaine Ricci Leonardi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Barbarah Helena NabarrettiFaculdade de Ciências Médicas, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, SP, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0219-1133
Roberta Balansin RigonFaculdade de Ciências Farmacêuticas, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, SP, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6851-6482
Jonny Burga-SánchezFaculdade de Odontologia de Piracicaba, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Piracicaba, SP, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8964-5993
Gislaine Ricci LeonardiFaculdade de Ciências Farmacêuticas, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, SP, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7126-1326

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Alternative methods to the use of animals in research have been a global trend, mainly after the publication of the 3R's principle (Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement), proposed by Russel and Burch. In the cosmetic sector, safety and efficacy assessments using animals have generated controversial debates. For this reason, in vitro research techniques are widely used to assess acute toxicity; corrosivity and irritation; skin sensitization; dermal and percutaneous absorption; repeated dose toxicity; reproductive toxicity; mutagenicity and genotoxicity; carcinogenicity; toxicokinetic studies; photo-induced toxicity; and human data. Although there are many methodologies described, validated, and widely used in the cosmetic area, the evaluation of the safety of cosmetic ingredients and products is still an expanding field. It needs global collaboration among regulatory agencies, universities, and industry, to meet several unmet needs in the fields of sensitization, carcinogenicity, systemic action, among other issues involving safety of users of cosmetic products. This review article will cover the currently most relevant in vitro models regarding irritation, corrosion, sensitization, mutagenicity, genotoxicity, and phototoxicity, to help to choose the most appropriate test for evaluating the safety and toxicity of cosmetic ingredients and products.

Indexed as

CosmeticsAnimalsHumansSkinCosmetics

Identifiers

PMID35137796
PMCPMC8809649

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.