ArticleRisk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis2026
Mapping Interactions Within EU Food and Feed Risk Analysis: A Comparative Study of Risk Assessors and Risk Managers.
Article in Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Considering prominent calls for various forms of cooperation, coordination, and collaboration within risk analysis processes, this empirical research study aims to delineate current forms of interaction between risk assessors and risk managers. Utilizing an online survey, it analyses responses from 95 professionals working in the field of food and feed risk analysis across at least 23 EU countries and determines interaction scores based on the degree of cooperation, coordination, and collaboration. The scores show that current interaction dominantly aligns with cooperation across multiple dimensions. However, multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) reveals significant perceptual differences between risk assessors and managers regarding their mutual interaction. In particular, risk assessors perceive their interaction with risk management more cooperative and risk managers perceive their interaction with risk assessment more collaborative. A notable difference was also observed in the interaction scores for routine risk analysis versus rapid risk analysis. In addition, clustering analysis and regression analysis was conducted to examine the relation and impact of different interaction dimensions on perceived quality of risk analysis. While the results do not support uniform calls for more collaboration, they show positive effects of open and frequent communication on the perceived quality of risk analysis. These results suggest working towards more individualized and fit-for-purpose interactions as well as to extend practitioner-oriented dialogue on desired modes of interactions, to enhance mutual understanding in their collective risk analysis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.