Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31817691›Full record

Trial reportNutrients2019

Differential Responses of Blood Essential Amino Acid Levels Following Ingestion of High-Quality Plant-Based Protein Blends Compared to Whey Protein-A Double-Blind Randomized, Cross-Over, Clinical Trial.

Jessica L Brennan, Maneephan Keerati-U-Rai, Huaixia Yin, Julie Daoust, Emilie Nonnotte, Laurent Quinquis, Thierry St-Denis, Douglas R Bolster

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialEquivalence Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Nutrients, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. The Anabolic Response to Plant-Based Protein Ingestion.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2021
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jessica L BrennanDanone North America, Louisville, CO 80027, USA.
Maneephan Keerati-U-RaiDanone North America, Louisville, CO 80027, USA.
Huaixia YinDanone North America, Louisville, CO 80027, USA.
Julie DaoustSequel Naturals, Burnaby, BC V5G 4W3, Canada.
Emilie NonnotteExcelya, 92100 Boulogne-Billancourt, France.
Laurent QuinquisDanone Research, 91120 Palaiseau, France.
Thierry St-DenisDanone North America, White Plains, NY 10605, USA.
Douglas R BolsterDanone North America, Louisville, CO 80027, USA.
Danone North America (United States)Danone (France) · FRLaboratoire Excell · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study assessed the bio-equivalence of high-quality, plant-based protein blends versus Whey Protein Isolate (WPI) in healthy, resistance-trained men. The primary endpoint was incremental area under the curve (iAUC) of blood essential Amino Acids (eAAs) 4 hours after consumption of each product. Maximum concentration (C

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAmino Acids, EssentialArea Under CurveCross-Over StudiesDietary SupplementsDouble-Blind MethodFeeding BehaviorHumansLeucineMalePlant Proteins, DietaryTime FactorsWhey ProteinsYoung AdultAmino Acids, EssentialLeucinePlant Proteins, DietaryWhey Proteinsessential amino acidshealthy menleucineplant-based proteinproteinwhey protein

Identifiers

PMID31817691
PMCPMC6950667
OpenAlexW2984190845

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.