| Title |
Using systematic reviews for hazard and risk assessment of endocrine disrupting chemicals
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Reviews in Endocrine and Metabolic Disorders, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11154-016-9334-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anna Beronius, Laura N. Vandenberg |
| Abstract |
The possibility that endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) in our environment contribute to hormonally related effects and diseases observed in human and wildlife populations has caused concern among decision makers and researchers alike. EDCs challenge principles traditionally applied in chemical risk assessment and the identification and assessment of these compounds has been a much debated topic during the last decade. State of the science reports and risk assessments of potential EDCs have been criticized for not using systematic and transparent approaches in the evaluation of evidence. In the fields of medicine and health care, systematic review methodologies have been developed and used to enable objectivity and transparency in the evaluation of scientific evidence for decision making. Lately, such approaches have also been promoted for use in the environmental health sciences and risk assessment of chemicals. Systematic review approaches could provide a tool for improving the evaluation of evidence for decision making regarding EDCs, e.g. by enabling systematic and transparent use of academic research data in this process. In this review we discuss the advantages and challenges of applying systematic review methodology in the identification and assessment of EDCs. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 4 | 80% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 60 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 13 | 21% |
| Unknown | 14 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Science | 11 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 13 | 21% |
| Unknown | 17 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 May 2018.
All research outputs
#7,686,573
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Reviews in Endocrine and Metabolic Disorders
#207
of 505 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,418
of 403,724 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Reviews in Endocrine and Metabolic Disorders
#7
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 505 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 403,724 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.