Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32625958›Full record

ArticleEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority2018

Update of the list of QPS-recommended biological agents intentionally added to food or feed as notified to EFSA 8: suitability of taxonomic units notified to EFSA until March 2018.

EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ), Antonia Ricci, Ana Allende, Declan Bolton, Marianne Chemaly, Robert Davies, Pablo Salvador Fernández Escámez, Rosina Girones, Konstantinos Koutsoumanis, Roland Lindqvist and 21 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Microbiome Composition in Microscopic Colitis: A Systematic Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Probiotic properties and functional potential of high-GABABiochemistry and biophysics reports · 2026
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Safety of an extension of use ofEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2023
    Article
  13. Review and Perspectives onMicroorganisms · 2023
    Review
  14. Safety of paramylon as a novel food pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2015/2283.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. International journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

31 authors.

EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ)
Antonia Ricci
Ana Allende
Declan Bolton
Marianne Chemaly
Robert Davies
Pablo Salvador Fernández Escámez
Rosina Girones
Konstantinos Koutsoumanis
Roland Lindqvist
Birgit Nørrung
Lucy Robertson
Giuseppe Ru
Moez Sanaa
Marion Simmons
Panagiotis Skandamis
Emma Snary
Niko Speybroeck
Benno Ter Kuile
John Threlfall
Helene Wahlström
Pier Sandro Cocconcelli
Luisa Peixe
Miguel Prieto Maradona
Amparo Querol
Juan Evaristo Suarez
Ingvar Sundh
Just Vlak
Fulvio Barizzone
Sandra Correia
Lieve Herman

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The qualified presumption of safety (QPS) was developed to provide a harmonised generic pre-evaluation procedure to support safety risk assessments of biological agents performed by EFSA's Scientific Panels. The identity, body of knowledge, safety concerns and antimicrobial resistance of valid taxonomic units were assessed. Safety concerns identified for a taxonomic unit are, where possible and reasonable in number, reflected by 'qualifications' which should be assessed at the strain level by the EFSA's Scientific Panels. During the current assessment, no new information was found that would change the previously recommended QPS taxonomic units and their qualifications. The Panel clarified that the qualification 'for production purpose only' implies the absence of viable cells of the production organism in the final product and can also be applied for food and feed products based on microbial biomass. Between September 2017 and March 2018, the QPS notification list was updated with 46 microorganisms from applications for market authorisation. From these, 28 biological agents already had QPS status, 15 were excluded of the QPS exercise from the previous QPS mandate (10 filamentous fungi and one bacteriophage) or from further evaluations within the current mandate (two notifications of

Indexed as

bacteriaPaenibacillus lentusParacoccus carotinifaciensQPSsafetyYarrowia lipolyticayeast

Identifiers

PMID32625958
PMCPMC7009647

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-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.