Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37213044›Full record

ReviewTransgenic research2023

Comparative safety assessment of genetically modified crops: focus on equivalence with reference varieties could contribute to more efficient and effective field trials.

Gijs A Kleter, Hilko van der Voet, Jasper Engel, Jan-Pieter van der Berg

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Transgenic research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

4 authors.

Gijs A KleterWageningen Food Safety Research, Part of Wageningen University and Research, P.O. Box 230, 6700 AE, Wageningen, Netherlands. gijs.kleter@wur.nl.ORCID 0000-0001-7030-1149
Hilko van der VoetBiometris, Wageningen Plant Research, Part of Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0802-7382
Jasper EngelBiometris, Wageningen Plant Research, Part of Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6087-1711
Jan-Pieter van der BergWageningen Food Safety Research, Part of Wageningen University and Research, P.O. Box 230, 6700 AE, Wageningen, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0089-2240

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The initial compositional analysis of plants plays an important role within the internationally harmonized comparative safety assessment approach for genetically modified plants. Current EFSA guidance prescribes two types of comparison, namely difference tests with regard to a conventional comparator or control, and equivalence tests with regard to a collection of commercial reference varieties. The experience gained so far shows that most of the statistically significant differences between the test and control can be discounted based on the fact that they are still within equivalence limits of reference varieties with a presumed history of safe use. Inclusion of a test variety and reference varieties into field trial design, and of the statistical equivalence test would already suffice for the purpose of finding relevant parameters that warrant further assessment, hence both the inclusion of a conventional counterpart and the performance of difference testing can be omitted. This would also allow for the inclusion of safety testing regimes into plant variety testing VCU (value for cultivation and use) or other, independent variety trials.

Indexed as

Crops, AgriculturalFood, Genetically ModifiedPlants, Genetically ModifiedComparative safety assessmentCrop compositionEquivalence testingField trialsGenetically modified cropsStatistical analysis

Identifiers

PMID37213044
PMCPMC10409827

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.