Evidence map›Paper›PMID 9255554›Full record

ReviewEnvironmental health perspectives1997

12th meeting of the Scientific Group on Methodologies for the Safety Evaluation of Chemicals: susceptibility to environmental hazards.

J C Barrett, H Vainio, D Peakall, B D Goldstein

Abstract readConsensus StatementReview
In one paragraph

Review in Environmental health perspectives, 1997. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Environmental Chemical Assessment in Clinical Practice: Unveiling the Elephant in the Room.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2016
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Applying bioethical principles to human biomonitoring.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2008
    Article
  8. Article
  9. 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.

J C BarrettNational Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.
H Vainio
D Peakall
B D Goldstein

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The 12th meeting of the Scientific Group on Methodologies for the Safety Evaluation of Chemicals (SGOMSEC) considered the topic of methodologies for determining human and ecosystem susceptibility to environmental hazards. The report prepared at the meeting describes measurement of susceptibility through the use of biological markers of exposure, biological markers of effect, and biomarkers directly indicative of susceptibility of humans or of ecosystems. The utility and validity of these biological markers for the study of susceptibility are evaluated, as are opportunities for developing newer approaches for the study of humans or of ecosystems. For the first time a SGOMSEC workshop also formally considered the issue of ethics in relation to methodology, an issue of particular concern for studies of susceptibility.

Indexed as

AnimalsBiomarkersDNA AdductsEcosystemEnvironmental MonitoringEthicsGene ExpressionHazardous SubstancesHumansMutationBiomarkersDNA AdductsHazardous Substances

Identifiers

PMID9255554
PMCPMC1470055

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.