Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33473303›Full record

ArticleFood science & nutrition2021

Consumer acceptance among Dutch and German students of insects in feed and food.

Natalia Naranjo-Guevara, Michelle Fanter, Anna Maria Conconi, Sonja Floto-Stammen

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Food science & nutrition, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
13.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 122 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. What Drives Pet Food Choices? A Systematic Literature Review.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Insects in Pet Food Industry-Hope or Threat?Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Natalia Naranjo-GuevaraResearch Group Business Innovation Fontys University of Applied Sciences Venlo The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3861-8968
Michelle FanterResearch Group Business Innovation Fontys University of Applied Sciences Venlo The Netherlands.
Anna Maria ConconiResearch Group Business Innovation Fontys University of Applied Sciences Venlo The Netherlands.
Sonja Floto-StammenResearch Group Business Innovation Fontys University of Applied Sciences Venlo The Netherlands.
Fontys University of Applied Sciences · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Due to the environmental and nutritional benefits of insects, their consumption would be one of the solutions to feed the growing human population. Despite the increasing interest in the use of insects as food and feed, consumer acceptance is the major obstacle to successful implementation in Western countries and we studied the factors that influence consumer acceptance in a group of university students from Germany and the Netherlands. In this exploratory research, a survey was conducted (

Indexed as

entomophagyenvironmental benefitshealth benefitsnovel protein sourcesvisual acceptancewillingness to accept

Identifiers

PMID33473303
PMCPMC7802571
OpenAlexW3106848896

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.