Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18515776›Full record

ReviewJournal of the Royal Society of Medicine2008

Genetically modified plants and human health.

Suzie Key, Julian K-C Ma, Pascal Mw Drake

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

34 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Herbarium specimens reveal links betweenbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Microbe Related Chemical Signalling and Its Application in Agriculture.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. PeerJ · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Suzie KeyMolecular Immunology Unit, Centre for Infection, Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, St George's University of London Cranmer Terrace, London SW17 0RE, UK.
Julian K-C Ma
Pascal Mw Drake

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genetically modified (or GM) plants have attracted a large amount of media attention in recent years and continue to do so. Despite this, the general public remains largely unaware of what a GM plant actually is or what advantages and disadvantages the technology has to offer, particularly with regard to the range of applications for which they can be used. From the first generation of GM crops, two main areas of concern have emerged, namely risk to the environment and risk to human health. As GM plants are gradually being introduced into the European Union there is likely to be increasing public concern regarding potential health issues. Although it is now commonplace for the press to adopt 'health campaigns', the information they publish is often unreliable and unrepresentative of the available scientific evidence. We consider it important that the medical profession should be aware of the state of the art, and, as they are often the first port of call for a concerned patient, be in a position to provide an informed opinion. This review will examine how GM plants may impact on human health both directly - through applications targeted at nutrition and enhancement of recombinant medicine production - but also indirectly, through potential effects on the environment. Finally, it will examine the most important opposition currently facing the worldwide adoption of this technology: public opinion.

Indexed as

DietFood, Genetically ModifiedHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticePublic HealthPublic OpinionFood ContaminationHumans

Identifiers

PMID18515776
PMCPMC2408621

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.