repeated systemic toxicity tests: a call for proper understanding of tests durations nomenclature

Background: testing of substances such as drugs, food, cosmetics, and chemicals meant for human utilization requires necessary guidelines to be followed. it was recently observed that the proposed duration protocols for subacute, subchronic, and chronic toxicity tests are miscomprehended and misapplied by some researchers. methods: this short evaluation, revealed areas where terminologies related to systemic toxicity test durations were misapplied and also properly applied. data from recently published articles from peer reviewed journals were explored via pubmed, google scholars, and web of science database using specific keywords such as “guideline on subacute, subchronic, chronic toxicity testing”, “subacute toxicity study”, “subchronic toxicity studies”, and “repeated toxicity studies on plant extracts”, and “6 months chronic toxicity test”. the articles that deviated form or complied with the standard test duration protocol were selected for scrutiny in the present study. the need for proper adoption of appropriate terms when developing topics for repeated toxicity test results was also discussed in this study. results: this study indicated that although some scholars conducted repeated dosing for 14 or 28 days, they incorrectly used the term “subchronic” instead of “subacute” in the titles of their studies. also, the term “chronic” was used instead of “subchronic” in the titles of some studies conducted for 90 days. conclusion: this study would enable researchers and reviewers of manuscripts in peer review toxicology journals to be acquainted with the laid down test duration protocols for subacute, subchronic, and chronic toxicity tests to ensure that previous errors are not repeated.