ReviewFoods (Basel, Switzerland)2020
Review of the Sensory and Physico-Chemical Properties of Red and White Wheat: Which Makes the Best Whole Grain?
Review in Foods (Basel, Switzerland), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predicting Temporal Liking of Food Pairings from Temporal Dominance of Sensations Data via Reservoir Computing on Crackers and Spreads.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Familiarization with White Whole Wheat Improves Acceptability of Whole Grain-Based Baked Products Made with White Whole Wheat Among College Students.American journal of lifestyle medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Nutritional guide to feeding wheat and wheat co-products to swine: a review.Translational animal science · 2024Article
- An Intervention With Michigan-Grown Wheat in Healthy Adult Humans to Determine Effect on Gut Microbiota: Protocol for a Crossover Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2021Article
- Factors Determining Consumer Acceptance of Biofortified Food: Case of Zinc-Fortified Wheat in Pakistan's Punjab Province.Frontiers in nutrition · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Establishing sensory and physico-chemical differences between products made from red and white wheat may guide the choice of wheat for use in whole grain and high fibre products. As sensory acceptance is key to consumption, this scoping review aimed to document sensory and physico-chemical research demonstrating quantitative differences in red and white wheat and the associated bran. The following databases were systematically searched following the PRISMA protocol: PubMed, Medline, Scopus, CINHAL and ScienceDirect (1990-2019). Of 16 studies, 13 were sensory studies with 529 participants (six of which included quantitative analysis) and three additional quantitative studies. Overall, 10 studies were in favour of white wheat (seven sensory studies, two focused on quantitative analysis and two with additional quantitative studies). Whole grain (wholemeal) bread, pita bread, crackers, noodles, tortillas, flour, intact grains and bran were examined. Aside from the seed coat colour, levels of bound versus free phenolic compounds and polyphenol oxidase activity appeared most responsible for the differences in red and white wheat. Ensuring the sample size for sensory studies are large enough to detect between-group preferences and linking to physico-chemical analysis are recommended. Attention to blinding techniques in sensory testing and use of food products realistically and consistently prepared with commercial potential are also suggested. This scoping review provides confidence in preference for white wheat for whole grain products, particularly for breads, tortillas and in the choice of white wheat for products suitable for the Asian market.
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.