Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32626067›Full record

ArticleEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority2019

Guidance on Communication of Uncertainty in Scientific Assessments.

European Food Safety Authority, Andrew Hart, Laura Maxim, Michael Siegrist, Natalie Von Goetz, Cristina da Cruz, Caroline Merten, Olaf Mosbach-Schulz, Majlinda Lahaniatis, Anthony Smith and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 69 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
69citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

69 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Holistic evaluation of long-term earthworm field studies with a fungicide.Integrated environmental assessment and management · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Welfare assessment of turkeys (EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2026
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Welfare of beef cattle.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. BSE risk posed by ruminant collagen and gelatine derived from bones.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Risks for animal health related to the presence of ergot alkaloids in feed.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Risks for animal health related to the presence of ochratoxin A (OTA) in feed.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2023
    Article
  17. Update of the risk assessment of mineral oil hydrocarbons in food.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2023
    Article
  18. Welfare of ducks, geese and quail on farm.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2023
    Article
  19. Welfare of dairy cows.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2023
    Article
  20. Risk assessment ofEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2023
    Article

9 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

European Food Safety Authority
Andrew Hart
Laura Maxim
Michael Siegrist
Natalie Von Goetz
Cristina da Cruz
Caroline Merten
Olaf Mosbach-Schulz
Majlinda Lahaniatis
Anthony Smith
Anthony Hardy

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This document provides guidance for communicators on how to communicate the various expressions of uncertainty described in EFSA's document: 'Guidance on uncertainty analysis in scientific assessments'. It also contains specific guidance for assessors on how best to report the various expressions of uncertainty. The document provides a template for identifying expressions of uncertainty in scientific assessments and locating the specific guidance for each expression. The guidance is structured according to EFSA's three broadly defined categories of target audience: 'entry', 'informed' and 'technical' levels. Communicators should use the guidance for entry and informed audiences, while assessors should use the guidance for the technical level. The guidance was formulated using evidence from the scientific literature, grey literature and two EFSA research studies, or based on judgement and reasoning where evidence was incomplete or missing. The limitations of the evidence sources inform the recommendations for further research on uncertainty communication.

Indexed as

likelihoodprobabilityrisk communicationtransparencyuncertainty communication

Identifiers

PMID32626067
PMCPMC7292191

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.