ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2020
Swallowing and Liking of Vegetable-Enriched Bread Compared With Commercial Breads as Evaluated by Older Adults.
Article in Frontiers in nutrition, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Acceptability of veggie bread among Lebanese adults.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Nutrient Composition, Physical Characteristics and Sensory Quality of Spinach-Enriched Wheat Bread.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Vegetable-enriched bread: Pilot and feasibility study of measurement of changes in skin carotenoid concentrations by reflection spectroscopy as a biomarker of vegetable intake.Food science & nutrition · 2023Article
- Bioactive Properties of Bread Formulated with Plant-based Functional Ingredients Before Consumption and Possible Links with Health Outcomes After Consumption- A Review.Plant foods for human nutrition (Dordrecht, Netherlands) · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Characteristics of food that influence liking and ease-of-chewing and swallowing are not well-understood. Reformulation of bread to improve nutrient density may improve liking, ease-of-chewing and swallowing which could improve dietary intake particularly with aging. The study aimed to compare objectively and subjectively four breads of increasing nutrient density: $1 white (WB) and wheatmeal (WMB) commercial breads and two in-house formulations of vegetable-enriched breads (VB75 or VB100) which incorporated drum-dried pumpkin and sweet corn flours for physical, sensory and ease-of-chewing and swallowing properties. Each bread underwent instrumental texture analysis. The commercial and vegetable-enriched breads were not different by hardness or springiness but the vegetable breads were up to 25% less cohesive, less gummy and less chewy than the commercial breads. Questionnaires and Likert scale (150 mm) responses were completed by 50 physically active volunteers aged 50+ years. Overall liking of the VB75 and VB100 was rated 40% higher than the white and wheatmeal breads. Vegetable-enriched breads were rated as almost 50% easier to chew (mean ± SD; WB 70.53 ± 39.46 mm, WMB 77.68 ± 33.13 mm, VB75 104.78 ± 30.69 mm, VB100 107.58 ± 24.90 mm) and swallow (WB 70.29 ± 37.98 mm, WMB 77.53 ± 34.88 mm, VB75 104.63 ± 28.25 mm, VB100 104.90 ± 25.54 mm). Vegetable-enriched breads compared to white and wheatmeal breads were instrumentally and subjectively less gummy, cohesive and chewy than commercial breads and have the potential to both improve nutrition and "ease of swallowing" in older people. New areas of research should explore other underutilized vegetables for bread enrichment and their ability to aid swallowing and improve nutrition status.
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.