Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31769838›Full record

ReviewNutrition reviews2020

Terms and nomenclature used for plant-derived components in nutrition and related research: efforts toward harmonization.

Jan Frank, Naomi K Fukagawa, Anna R Bilia, Elizabeth J Johnson, Oran Kwon, Vish Prakash, Teruo Miyazawa, Michael N Clifford, Colin D Kay, Alan Crozier and 3 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nutrition reviews, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 68 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Berries, Leaves, and Flowers of Six Hawthorn Species (Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

13 authors at 13 institutions in 8 countries.

Jan FrankUniversity of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany.
Naomi K FukagawaUSDA ARS Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center, Beltsville, Maryland, USA.
Anna R BiliaUniversity of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Elizabeth J JohnsonTufts University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Oran KwonEwha Woman's University, Seoul, South Korea.
Vish PrakashInstitute of Chemical Technology, Mumbai, and RUAS Bangalore, India.
Teruo MiyazawaTohoku University, Sendai, Japan.
Michael N CliffordUniversity of Surrey, Guildford, UK.
Colin D KayNorth Carolina State University, Kannapolis, North Carolina, USA.
Alan CrozierUniversity of California, Davis, California, USA, and University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
John W ErdmanUniversity of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois, USA.
Andrew ShaoChromadex Corp., Los Angeles, California, USA.
Gary WilliamsonMonash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center · USChromaDex (United States) · USEwha Womans University · KRInstitute of Chemical Technology · INMonash University · AUNorth Carolina State University · USTohoku University · JPTufts University · USUniversity of Florence · ITUniversity of Glasgow · GBUniversity of Hohenheim · DEUniversity of Illinois Urbana-Champaign · USUniversity of Surrey · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many terms for plant-derived food components are commonly used in the literature, but there is a notable lack of standardization and definition of nomenclature. The use of terms is often field-specific, leading to misunderstanding and problems with literature searches and systematic reviews, and results in isolated and divided research; this impacts not only publication quality but also innovation, regulatory compliance, and enforcement. To begin to address this issue, this narrative review describes the current use and definition of terms. The terms are either chemical and/or origin-based, such as phytochemical (chemicals from plants), or function-based, such as phytonutrient, bioactive, or nutraceutical. The ultimate goal is to establish a common harmonized, evidence-based understanding for when to use each term, thereby providing clarity and a specific scientific basis for such nomenclature. Neither the quality nor the quantity of evidence needed to allow the use of functional terms such as phytonutrient or nutraceutical is specifically discussed here; rather, it is simply noted that evidence is needed to apply these terms. The next step would be to define the evidence necessary for a compound to have a functional descriptor. The aim in this article is to establish scientific criteria for definitions that could be applied to clearly define and differentiate commonly used terms and thus ensure their consistent application in the scientific literature.

Indexed as

PhytochemicalsPlant PreparationsTerminology as TopicBiomedical ResearchHumansNutritional SciencesPhytochemicalsPlant Preparationsbioactivecarotenoidflavonoidnomenclaturenutraceuticalphytochemicalphytonutrientpolyphenol

Identifiers

PMID31769838
PMCPMC7212822
OpenAlexW2989926507

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.