↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
131 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Application of the Navigation Guide systematic review methodology to the evidence for developmental and reproductive toxicity of triclosan
Published in
Environment International, May 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.envint.2016.03.009
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

There are reports of developmental and reproductive health effects associated with the widely used biocide triclosan. Apply the Navigation Guide systematic review methodology to answer the question: Does exposure to triclosan have adverse effects on human development or reproduction? We applied the first 3 steps of the Navigation Guide methodology: 1) Specify a study question, 2) Select the evidence, and 3) Rate quality and strength of the evidence. We developed a protocol, conducted a comprehensive search of the literature, and identified relevant studies using pre-specified criteria. We assessed the number and type of all relevant studies. We evaluated each included study for risk of bias and rated the quality and strength of the evidence for the selected outcomes. We conducted a meta-analysis on a subset of suitable data. We found 4282 potentially relevant records, and 81 records met our inclusion criteria. Of the more than 100 endpoints identified by our search, we focused our evaluation on hormone concentration outcomes, which had the largest human and non-human mammalian data set. Three human studies and 8 studies conducted in rats reported thyroxine levels as outcomes. The rat data were amenable to meta-analysis. Because only one of the human thyroxine studies quantified exposure, we did not conduct a meta-analysis of the human data. Through meta-analysis of the data for rats, we estimated for prenatal exposure a 0.09% (95% CI: -0.20, 0.02) reduction in thyroxine concentration per mg triclosan/kg-bw in fetal and young rats compared to control. For postnatal exposure we estimated a 0.31% (95% CI: -0.38, -0.23) reduction in thyroxine per mg triclosan/kg-bw, also compared to control. Overall, we found low to moderate risk of bias across the human studies and moderate to high risk of bias across the non-human studies, and assigned a "moderate/low" quality rating to the body of evidence for human thyroid hormone alterations and a "moderate" quality rating to the body of evidence for non-human thyroid hormone alterations. Based on this application of the Navigation Guide systematic review methodology, we concluded that there was "sufficient" non-human evidence and "inadequate" human evidence of an association between triclosan exposure and thyroxine concentrations, and consequently, triclosan is "possibly toxic" to reproductive and developmental health. Thyroid hormone disruption is an upstream indicator of developmental toxicity. Additional endpoints may be identified as being of equal or greater concern as other data are developed or evaluated.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 131 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 126 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 21 16%
Student > Bachelor 17 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 12%
Student > Master 15 11%
Student > Postgraduate 6 5%
Other 14 11%
Unknown 42 32%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 16 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 5%
Other 26 20%
Unknown 49 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 50. 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 15 December 2021.
All research outputs
#1,041,153
of 33,779,198 outputs
Outputs from Environment International
#699
of 6,540 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,688
of 334,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environment International
#7
of 99 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 33,779,198 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,540 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 334,806 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 99 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.