External Contact With Monoethyl Ether of Diethylene Glycol (Carbitol Solvent)

CRANCH, A. GIRARD

doi:10.1001/archderm.1942.01500090100009

Cited by 11 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Overall, differences were observed in how and to what extent information from the published studies was reflected or reported in the study summaries, but to a varying degree. Some studies were generally well reflected in the study summaries with only a few deviations (e.g., Cranch et al 1942;Goldberg et al 1964;Penninks and Seinen 1982). In contrast, summaries for other studies differed more both in the extent of information that was included as well as in how the information was reported (e.g., Loeser and Lorke 1976a;Maltoni et al 1986;Ballantyne et al 2006).…”

Section: Reporting Of Information In the Study Summary Compared To Thmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The study by van der Ven et al (2006) was Lake et al (1983): The purity for the substance used in the metabolic study was reported instead of the substance used in the toxicological test, for which only information on supplier was reported in the published study. Cranch et al (1942): Ten animals per dose group was reported when seemingly 10 animals were used in total.…”

Section: Differences In Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Toxicity studies used in registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals (REACH): How accurately are they reported?

Ingre-Khans

Ågerstrand²,

Beronius

et al. 2019

Integr Envir Assess & Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Toxicity studies on chemicals registered under the European Union's Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) regulation are provided as summaries instead of as a full study report. Because the registration data are used by regulatory agencies to identify chemicals of concern, the study summaries must accurately reflect the information in studies. A “study summary” should include sufficient information on the objectives, methods, results, and conclusions in the full study report in order for the relevance of the study to be determined. Sometimes a “robust study summary” is required, which should contain more detailed information to enable an independent assessment of the study. The aim of the present investigation is to examine how well published toxicity papers were reflected in study summaries submitted by registrants under REACH. Summaries of 20 published studies (peer‐reviewed studies, including 1 abstract) were examined and broad categories of various types of observed differences were derived. The extent to which information in the published studies was reported, as well as how accurately the information was reflected, varied. How accurately the information was reflected also varied. Differences between the published studies and the summaries included simple typing errors, unclear and incomplete reporting, as well as the omission of information on, for example, study design, results, or interpretation of the results, which in some cases could be considered relevant for the risk assessment. This raises concerns regarding the accuracy of study summaries and their use for decision making. Moreover, the possibility for third parties to independently assess and scrutinize the summaries is limited. Considering that we rely on REACH registration data for chemical safety, all data used for risk assessment should be accessible for thorough examination and fully independent assessment. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2019;00:000–000. © 2019 SETAC

show abstract