Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36797432›Full record

ReviewArchives of toxicology2023

Evidential requirements for the regulatory hazard and risk assessment of respiratory sensitisers: methyl methacrylate as an example.

Bette Meek, James W Bridges, Andrew Fasey, Ursula G Sauer

Full text readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Archives of toxicology, 2023. 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. Review
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.

Bette MeekUniversity of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
James W BridgesEmeritus Professor, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, UK.
Andrew FaseyPTK (Finland) Ltd., Helsinki, Finland.
Ursula G SauerScientific Consultancy-Animal Welfare, Hallstattfeld 16, 85579, Neubiberg, Germany. ursula.sauer@sauerug.de.ORCID 0000-0002-0352-2985

Funding

European Chemical Industry Council and Methacrylates Producers Association, Inc. a freelance scientific consultantEuropean Chemical Industry Council and Methacrylates Producers Association, Inc. Andrew Fasey were entitled to receive an honorarium given by CeficEuropean Chemical Industry Council and Methacrylates Producers Association, Inc. For their participation in the Expert PanelEuropean Chemical Industry Council and Methacrylates Producers Association, Inc. Inc. Ursula G. SauerEuropean Chemical Industry Council and Methacrylates Producers Association, Inc. James W. BridgesEuropean Chemical Industry Council and Methacrylates Producers Association, Inc. M.E. (Bette) MeekEuropean Chemical Industry Council and Methacrylates Producers Association, Inc. the Methacrylates Producers AssociationEuropean Chemical Industry Council and Methacrylates Producers Association, Inc. to assist in the writing of the manuscript.European Chemical Industry Council and Methacrylates Producers Association, Inc. was hired by Cefic to take notes during the Expert Panel
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This review addresses the need for a framework to increase the consistency, objectivity and transparency in the regulatory assessment of respiratory sensitisers and associated uncertainties. Principal issues are considered and illustrated through a case study (with methyl methacrylate). In the absence of test methods validated for regulatory use, formal documentation of the weight-of-evidence for hazard classification both at the level of integration of individual studies within lines of evidence and across a broad range of data streams was agreed to be critical for such a framework. An integrated approach is proposed to include not only occupational studies and clinical evidence for the regulatory assessment of respiratory sensitisers, but also information on structure and physical and chemical factors, predictive approaches such as structure activity analysis and in vitro and in vivo mechanistic and toxicokinetic findings. A weight-of-evidence protocol, incorporating integration of these sources of data based on predefined considerations, would contribute to transparency and consistency in the outcome of the assessment. In those cases where a decision may need to be taken on the basis of occupational findings alone, conclusions should be based on transparent weighting of relevant data on the observed prevalence of occupational asthma in various studies taking into account all relevant information including the range and nature of workplace exposures to the substance of interest, co-exposure to other chemicals and study quality.

Indexed as

MethacrylatesMethylmethacrylateRisk AssessmentUncertaintyMethacrylatesMethylmethacrylateHarmonised classification and labelling (CLH)Mode-of-action (MoA)Modified Bradford Hill considerationsRespiratory sensitisationWeight-of-evidence (WoE)

Identifiers

PMID36797432
PMCPMC10025211

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read26
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.