ArticleFood and agricultural immunology2014
Comparison of gluten recovery in gluten-incurred buckwheat flour using different commercial test kits.
Article in Food and agricultural immunology, 2014. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recovery of gluten in buckwheat flour was evaluated as part of an effort to produce wheat-contaminated buckwheat flours that could be used as reference materials (RMs) for testing the presence of gluten in buckwheat. RMs of buckwheat containing 0, 20, 100 and 1000 ppm gluten were created and tested by ELISA. The Gluten-Check kit detected gluten accurately at all levels; RIDASCREEN and Biokits tests were accurate at 20 and 100 ppm levels, but at 1000 ppm both suffered from extraction saturation effect; Veratox kit read 60% higher for the 20 ppm RM (i.e., 31.9 ppm), but close to the target at 100 ppm RM; Veratox R5 kit showed low accuracy with around 30% recovery at 20 and 100 ppm and some 60% at 1000 ppm level. Overall, the results showed variations in recovery among different test kits which could have important implications in the accurate detection of gluten in buckwheat.
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.