Evidence map›Paper›PMID 9599687›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental health perspectives1998

13th meeting of the Scientific Group on Methodologies for the Safety Evaluation of Chemicals (SGOMSEC): alternative testing methodologies and conceptual issues.

B J Blaauboer, M Balls, M Barratt, S Casati, S Coecke, M K Mohamed, J Moore, D Rall, K R Smith, R Tennant and 3 more

Abstract readConference Proceedings
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental health perspectives, 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
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

13 authors.

B J BlaauboerRITOX, Utrecht University, The Netherlands. b.blaauboer@ritox.dgk.ruu.nl
M Balls
M Barratt
S Casati
S Coecke
M K Mohamed
J Moore
D Rall
K R Smith
R Tennant
B A Schwetz
W S Stokes
M Younes

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Substantial world-wide resources are being committed to develop improved toxicological testing methods that will contribute to better protection of human health and the environment. The development of new methods is intrinsically driven by new knowledge emanating from fundamental research in toxicology, carcinogenesis, molecular biology, biochemistry, computer sciences, and a host of other disciplines. Critical evaluations and strong scientific consensus are essential to facilitate adoption of alternative methods for use in the safety assessment of drugs, chemicals, and other environmental factors. Recommendations to hasten the development of new alternative methods included increasing emphasis on the development of mechanism-based methods, increasing fundamental toxicological research, increasing training on the use of alternative methods, integrating accepted alternative methods into toxicity assessment, internationally harmonizating chemical toxicity classification schemes, and increasing international cooperation to develop, validate, and gain acceptance of alternative methods.

Indexed as

Animal Testing AlternativesAnimal WelfareRisk AssessmentAnimalsEnvironmental PollutantsHumansInternational CooperationIn Vitro TechniquesModels, BiologicalPublic HealthToxicity TestsEnvironmental Pollutants

Identifiers

PMID9599687
PMCPMC1533381

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.