Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35975296›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of pharmacology2022

Environmental pharmacology-Dosing the environment: IUPHAR review 36.

Christopher N Connolly, Stephen P H Alexander, Jamie A Davies, Michael Spedding

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of pharmacology, 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
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Christopher N ConnollyIndependent.ORCID 0000-0002-0445-8874
Stephen P H AlexanderSchool of Life Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4417-497X
Jamie A DaviesCentre for Discovery Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Michael SpeddingSpedding Research Solutions, Le Vesinet, France.ORCID 0000-0002-1248-8221
Clinical Solutions · USUniversity of Edinburgh · GBUniversity of Nottingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pesticide action is predominantly measured as a toxicological outcome, with pharmacological impact of sublethal doses on bystander species left largely undocumented. Likewise, chronic exposure, which often results in responses different from acute administration, has also been understudied. In this article, we propose the application of standard pharmacological principles, already used to establish safe clinical dosing regimens in humans, to the 'dosing of the environment'. These principles include relating the steady state dose of an agent to its beneficial effects (e.g. pest control), while minimising harmful impacts (e.g. off-target bioactivity in beneficial insects). We propose the term 'environmental therapeutic window', analogous to that used in mammalian pharmacology, to guide risk assessment. To make pharmacological terms practically useful to environmental protection, quantitative data on pesticide action need to be made available in a freely accessible database, which should include toxicological and pharmacological impacts on both target and off-target species.

Indexed as

PesticidesAnimalsHumansMammalsPesticidesagriculturebiodiversityenvironmentfungicideneonicotinoidpesticidepharmacologytherapeutic window

Identifiers

PMID35975296
PMCPMC9804906
OpenAlexW4292300284

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.