| 1. |
- Bergman, Åke, et al.
(författare)
-
Manufacturing doubt about endocrine disrupter science : A rebuttal of industry-sponsored critical comments on the UNEP/WHO report "State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals 2012"
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology. - : Academic Press. - 0273-2300 .- 1096-0295. ; 73:3, s. 1007-1017
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- We present a detailed response to the critique of "State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals 2012" (UNEP/WHO, 2013) by financial stakeholders, authored by Lamb et al. (2014). Lamb et al.'s claim that UNEP/WHO (2013) does not provide a balanced perspective on endocrine disruption is based on incomplete and misleading quoting of the report through omission of qualifying statements and inaccurate description of study objectives, results and conclusions. Lamb et al. define extremely narrow standards for synthesizing evidence which are then used to dismiss the UNEP/WHO 2013 report as flawed. We show that Lamb et al. misuse conceptual frameworks for assessing causality, especially the Bradford-Hill criteria, by ignoring the fundamental problems that exist with inferring causality from empirical observations. We conclude that Lamb et al.'s attempt of deconstructing the UNEP/WHO (2013) report is not particularly erudite and that their critique is not intended to be convincing to the scientific community, but to confuse the scientific data. Consequently, it promotes misinterpretation of the UNEP/WHO (2013) report by non-specialists, bureaucrats, politicians and other decision makers not intimately familiar with the topic of endocrine disruption and therefore susceptible to false generalizations of bias and subjectivity.
|
|
| 2. |
- Bergman, Åke, et al.
(författare)
-
Science and policy on endocrine disrupters must not be mixed : a reply to a "common sense" intervention by toxicology journal editors
- 2013
-
Ingår i: Environmental Health. - : BioMed Central (BMC). - 1476-069X. ; 12
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The "common sense" intervention by toxicology journal editors regarding proposed European Union endocrine disrupter regulations ignores scientific evidence and well-established principles of chemical risk assessment. In this commentary, endocrine disrupter experts express their concerns about a recently published, and is in our considered opinion inaccurate and factually incorrect, editorial that has appeared in several journals in toxicology. Some of the shortcomings of the editorial are discussed in detail. We call for a better founded scientific debate which may help to overcome a polarisation of views detrimental to reaching a consensus about scientific foundations for endocrine disrupter regulation in the EU.
|
|
| 3. |
- Naeser, Ylva, et al.
(författare)
-
TRIM study protocol - a prospective randomized multicenter Trial to assess the Role of Imaging during follow-up after radical surgery of stage IIB-C and III cutaneous malignant Melanoma
- 2020
-
Ingår i: BMC Cancer. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1471-2407. ; 20:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BackgroundThe incidence of cutaneous malignant melanoma (CMM) is increasing worldwide. In Sweden, over 4600 cases were diagnosed in 2018. The prognosis after radical surgery varies considerably with tumor stage. In recent years, new treatment options have become available for metastatic CMM. Early onset of treatment seems to improve outcome, which suggests that early detection of recurrent disease should be beneficial. Consequently, in several countries imaging is a part of the routine follow-up program after surgery of high risk CMM. However, imaging has drawbacks, including resources required (costs, personnel, equipment) and the radiation exposure. Furthermore, many patients experience anxiety in waiting for the imaging results and investigations of irrelevant findings is another factor that also could cause worry and lead to decreased quality of life. Hence, the impact of imaging in this setting is important to address and no randomized study has previously been conducted. The Swedish national guidelines stipulate follow-up for 3years by clinical examinations only.MethodsThe TRIM study is a prospective randomized multicenter trial evaluating the potential benefit of imaging and blood tests during follow-up after radical surgery for high-risk CMM, compared to clinical examinations only. Primary endpoint is overall survival (OS) at 5years. Secondary endpoints are survival from diagnosis of relapse and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Eligible for inclusion are patients radically operated for CMM stage IIB-C or III with sufficient renal function for iv contrast-enhanced CT and who are expected to be fit for treatment in case of recurrence. The planned number of patients is >1300. Patients are randomized to clinical examinations for 3years +/- whole-body imaging with CT or FDG-PET/CT and laboratory tests including S100B protein and LDH. This academic study is supported by the Swedish Melanoma Study Group.DiscussionThis is the first randomized prospective trial on the potential benefit of imaging as a part of the follow-up scheme after radical surgery for high-risk CMM.ResultsThe first patient was recruited in June 2017 and as of April 2020, almost 500 patients had been included at 19 centers in Sweden.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT 03116412. Registered 17 April 2017, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT03116412
|
|
