Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32626029›Full record

ArticleEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority2018

Protocol for the scientific opinion on the Tolerable Upper Intake Level of dietary sugars.

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)

Open access · diamondAbstract 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 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Tolerable upper intake level for dietary sugars.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2022
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

1 author.

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In June 2016, EFSA received a mandate from the national food competent authorities of five European countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden) to provide a dietary reference value (DRV) for sugars, with particular attention to added sugars. A draft protocol was developed with the aim of defining as much as possible beforehand the strategy that will be applied for collecting data, appraising the relevant evidence, and analysing and integrating the evidence in order to draw conclusions that will form the basis for the Scientific Opinion on sugars. As EFSA wished to seek advice from stakeholders on this draft protocol, the NDA Panel endorsed it for public consultation on 12 December 2017. The consultation was open from 9 January to 4 March 2018. A technical meeting with stakeholders was held in Brussels on 13 February 2018, during the consultation period. After consultation with stakeholders and the mandate requestors, EFSA interprets this mandate as a request to provide scientific advice on an Tolerable Upper Intake Level (UL) for (total/added/free) sugars, i.e. the maximum level of total chronic daily intake of sugars (from all sources) judged to be unlikely to pose a risk of adverse health effects to humans. The assessment concerns the main types of sugars (mono- and disaccharides) found in mixed diets (i.e. glucose, fructose, galactose, sucrose, lactose, maltose and trehalose) taken through the oral route. The health outcomes of interest relate to the development of metabolic diseases and dental caries. The final version of the protocol was endorsed by the EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies on 28 June 2018.

Indexed as

adverse effectsdental cariesmetabolic diseasesprotocolsugarstolerable upper intake level

Identifiers

PMID32626029
PMCPMC7009449
OpenAlexW4235515765

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.