↓ Skip to main content

Criteria for Reporting and Evaluating ecotoxicity Data (CRED): comparison and perception of the Klimisch and CRED methods for evaluating reliability and relevance of ecotoxicity studies

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Sciences Europe, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
55 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 Mendeley
Title
Criteria for Reporting and Evaluating ecotoxicity Data (CRED): comparison and perception of the Klimisch and CRED methods for evaluating reliability and relevance of ecotoxicity studies
Published in
Environmental Sciences Europe, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12302-016-0073-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robert Kase, Muris Korkaric, Inge Werner, Marlene Ågerstrand

Abstract

The regulatory evaluation of ecotoxicity studies for environmental risk and/or hazard assessment of chemicals is often performed using the method established by Klimisch and colleagues in 1997. The method was, at that time, an important step toward improved evaluation of study reliability, but lately it has been criticized for lack of detail and guidance, and for not ensuring sufficient consistency among risk assessors. A new evaluation method was thus developed: Criteria for Reporting and Evaluating ecotoxicity Data (CRED). The CRED evaluation method aims at strengthening consistency and transparency of hazard and risk assessment of chemicals by providing criteria and guidance for reliability and relevance evaluation of aquatic ecotoxicity studies. A two-phased ring test was conducted to compare and characterize the differences between the CRED and Klimisch evaluation methods. A total of 75 risk assessors from 12 countries participated. Results show that the CRED evaluation method provides a more detailed and transparent evaluation of reliability and relevance than the Klimisch method. Ring test participants perceived it to be less dependent on expert judgement, more accurate and consistent, and practical regarding the use of criteria and time needed for performing an evaluation. We conclude that the CRED evaluation method is a suitable replacement for the Klimisch method, and that its use may contribute to an improved harmonization of hazard and risk assessments of chemicals across different regulatory frameworks.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 83 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 21%
Student > Master 12 14%
Other 11 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Other 16 19%
Unknown 10 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 30 36%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 13%
Chemistry 4 5%
Engineering 4 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Other 12 14%
Unknown 20 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 27 November 2019.
All research outputs
#7,544,407
of 23,016,919 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Sciences Europe
#212
of 586 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,991
of 298,180 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Sciences Europe
#3
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,016,919 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 586 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 298,180 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 56% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.