Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40589980›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in research metrics and analytics2025

Setting off on the right path: make your research regulatory relevant.

Anna Pohl, Elise Morel, Eric A J Bleeker, Sean Kelly, Rachel Smith, Claus Svendsen, Thomas A J Kuhlbusch, Elisabeth Heunisch

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in research metrics and analytics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors.

Anna Pohl *Hazardous Substances and Biological Agents, Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (BAuA), Berlin/Dortmund, Germany.
Elise Morel *UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (UKCEH), Wallingford, United Kingdom.
Eric A J BleekerCentre for Safety of Substances and Products, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, Netherlands.
Sean KellyNanotechnology Industries Association Aisbl (NIA), Brussels, Belgium.
Rachel SmithUK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), Didcot, United Kingdom.
Claus SvendsenUK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (UKCEH), Wallingford, United Kingdom.
Thomas A J KuhlbuschHazardous Substances and Biological Agents, Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (BAuA), Berlin/Dortmund, Germany.
Elisabeth HeunischHazardous Substances and Biological Agents, Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (BAuA), Berlin/Dortmund, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Scientifically well-established methods do not automatically get used in regulations. Even when there is an urgent need for regulatory relevant test methods, methods need to pass through a so-called standardization process. This involves following specific agreed processes, which define the timeline and requirements (e.g., validation, documentation, approval) before the method can be integrated in regulatory oriented standards or Test Guidelines from the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The process is often seen as too complex or too resource (and time) consuming by the scientific community, which inhibits method developers from translating their scientific methods and protocols into standards or OECD Test Guidelines. Numerous incentives exist for scientists to be (more) active in the standardization process and allow regulation to keep up with new scientific developments. These include an increase in research impacts, an expansion and diversification of the international expert network, and an access to more fundings. This paper shows scientists how to reach such outcomes, by providing guidance on how to navigate successfully through the standards and OECD Test Guidelines development processes. Especially the requirements for method validation, which is a prerequisite in this process and common across the different standardization bodies. For further details and insights, readers are invited to consult the various freely available resources generated by the NanoHarmony EU project. These are compiled in the OECD Test Guideline Process Mentor (https://testguideline-development.org/). The active participation of scientists along the entire process toward standards and OECD Test Guidelines is key. Only then can their methods be expanded into a wider, regulatory application toward a safer world.

Indexed as

method developmentmethod validationOECD test guidelinesregulatory safety testingstandardization

Identifiers

PMID40589980
PMCPMC12206734

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.