Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31082523›Full record

ReviewToxicology letters2019

Development of a consensus approach for botanical safety evaluation - A roundtable report.

Corrado L Galli, Nigel J Walker, Nicholas H Oberlies, Amy L Roe, James Edwards, Suzanne Fitzpatrick, James C Griffiths, A Wallace Hayes, Catherine Mahony, Daniel S Marsman and 1 more

Abstract readConsensus StatementReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Corrado L GalliUniversità Degli Studi Di Milano, Milano, Italy.
Nigel J WalkerNTP-NIEHS, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Nicholas H OberliesUniversity of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC, USA.
Amy L RoeProcter & Gamble, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
James EdwardsDSM Nutritional Products, Kaiseraugst, Switzerland.
Suzanne FitzpatrickFDA CFSAN, College Park, MD, USA.
James C GriffithsCouncil for Responsible Nutrition-International, Washington, DC, USA.
A Wallace HayesMichigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA.
Catherine MahonyProcter & Gamble, Egham, Surrey, UK.
Daniel S MarsmanProcter & Gamble, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
Lara O'KeeffeProcter & Gamble, Egham, Surrey, UK. Electronic address: okeeffe.lk@pg.com.

Funding

Toxicological Assessments for the National Toxicology ProgramZIAES103316 · NIEHS · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES · PI WALKER, NIGEL J · 2016 to 2019
$31.9M
Toxicological Assessments for the Division of the National Toxicology ProgramZICES103316 · NIEHS · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES · PI WALKER, NIGEL J · 2020 to 2021
$18.5M
Intramural NIH HHS Z99 ES999999Intramural NIH HHS ZIC ES103316
6 · The paper itself

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

Decision TreesAnimalsConsensusConsumer Product SafetyDietary SupplementsDose-Response Relationship, DrugHumansModels, BiologicalPatient SafetyPlant PreparationsRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsToxicokineticsToxicologyPlant PreparationsADME natural productsBotanicalBotanical-drug interactionsComplex mixturesConsensusConstituent characterizationDecision treeFood/dietary supplementIn silicoThreshold of toxicological concern

Identifiers

PMID31082523
PMCPMC12709598

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.