ReviewToxicology letters2019
Development of a consensus approach for botanical safety evaluation - A roundtable report.
Review in Toxicology letters, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- From Vision to Reality: Five Years of the Botanical Safety Consortium.Pharmaceutical biology · 2025Review
- Review
- Strengthening Dietary Supplement Research: An Expanded Priority for the NIH Office of Dietary Supplements.The American journal of clinical nutrition · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Botanical safety science continues to evolve as new tools for risk assessment become available alongside continual desire by consumers for "natural" botanical ingredients in consumer products. Focusing on botanical food/dietary supplements a recent international roundtable meeting brought together scientists to discuss the needs, available tools, and ongoing data gaps in the botanical safety risk assessment process. Participants discussed the key elements of botanical safety evaluations. They provided perspective on the use of a decision tree methodology to conduct a robust risk assessment and concluded with alignment on a series of consensus statements. This discussion highlighted the strengths and vulnerabilities in common assumptions, and the participants shared additional perspective to ensure that this end-to-end safety approach is sufficient, actionable and timely. Critical areas and data gaps were identified as opportunities for future focus. These include, better context on history of use, systematic assessment of weight of evidence, use of in silico approaches, inclusion of threshold of toxicological concern considerations, individual substances/matrix interactions of plant constituents, assessing botanical-drug interactions and adaptations needed to apply to in vitro and in vivo pharmacokinetic modelling of botanical constituents.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.