ReviewInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022
Strengthening Australia's Chemical Regulation.
Review in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review of the risk management frameworks for potentially toxic chemical elements.Toxicology and industrial health · 2023Pooled it
- Navigating through toxicological data: review of toxicological databases and sources in the interdisciplinary context including-chemicals, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals and forensics.Archives of toxicology · 2026Review
- Nano-Agrochemicals as Substitutes for Pesticides: Prospects and Risks.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Health risk management framework for heavy metals and cyanide in Kwekwe city of Zimbabwe: a mixed-method study protocol.Journal of health, population, and nutrition · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Humans are exposed to a myriad of chemicals every day, some of which have been established to have deleterious effects on human health. Regulatory frameworks play a vital role in safeguarding human health through the management of chemicals and their risks. For this review, we focused on agricultural and veterinary (Agvet) chemicals and industrial chemicals, which are regulated, respectively, by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA), and the Australian Industrial Chemicals Introduction Scheme (AICIS). The current frameworks have been considered fragmented, inefficient, and most importantly, unsafe in prioritizing human health. We evaluated these frameworks, identified gaps, and suggested improvements that would help bring chemical regulation in Australia in line with comparative regulations in the EU, US, and Canada. Several weaknesses in the Australian frameworks include the lack of a national program to monitor chemical residues, slow pace in conducting chemical reviews, inconsistent risk management across states and territories, a paucity of research efforts on human health impacts, and inadequate framework assessment systems. Recommendations for Australia include establishing a national surveillance and chemical residue monitoring system, harmonizing risk assessment and management across jurisdictions, improving chemical review efficiency, and developing regular performance review mechanisms to ensure that human health is protected.
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.