ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Construction Products between Testing Laboratory and Market Surveillance: Case study of Cementitious Ceramic Tile Adhesives.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Assessment of Cementitious Ceramic Tile Adhesives in the Light of Repeatability and Reproducibility of the Tensile Adhesion Strength Measurements.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This article presents the results of the interlaboratory comparison (ILC) study of the following four characteristics of ceramic tile adhesives (CTAs): initial tensile adhesion strength, tensile adhesion strength after heat ageing, tensile adhesion strength after immersion in water, and tensile adhesion strength after freeze-thaw cycles. The results showed that the objective of the ILC was achieved-the z-score analysis carried out following ISO 13528 allowed for classifying all results obtained by 23 laboratories out of 27 as satisfactory. The results of the remaining four laboratories were rated worse. Despite the achieved goal, the ILC notes high heterogeneity of the results in terms of failure patterns, as well as significant differences between the lowest and the highest values of tensile adhesion strength for various measurement conditions. The results of the ILC were discussed in terms of the possibility of including them in the risk analysis conducted by the manufacturer. The results of the ILC are also valuable information for market surveillance authorities, who, in the authors' opinion, should be more cautious about results on samples taken from the market. The ILC results for CTAs are also a valuable recommendation for a possible revision of EN 12004.
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.