ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Assessment of Cementitious Ceramic Tile Adhesives in the Light of Repeatability and Reproducibility of the Tensile Adhesion Strength Measurements.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The paper presents the results of tensile adhesion strength measurements of ceramic tile adhesive (CTA) stored in various conditions performed by ten operators in one laboratory using the same equipment and auxiliary materials. The obtained results allowed the authors to estimate the repeatability and reproducibility of the tensile adhesion strength measurement method using the methodology following ISO 5725-2:1994+AC1:2002. Standard deviations of repeatability ranging from 0.09 to 0.15 for the general means value in the range of 0.89-1.76 MPa and standard deviations of reproducibility ranging from 0.14 to 0.21 for the same general means content indicate that the accuracy of tensile adhesion strength measurement method is not high enough. From the group of ten operators, five perform tensile adhesion strength measurements daily, the remaining five perform other measures, and the results obtained by professionals and non-professionals showed no significant differences. In light of the obtained results, compliance assessment with this method with the criteria set out in the harmonized standard EN 12004:2007+A1:2012 carried out by different operators may be divergent, and there is a significant risk of incorrect assessments. This risk is additionally increasing in the case of the evaluation conducted by market surveillance authorities, which use the simple acceptance rule that does not consider measurement variability.
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.