Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34205059›Full record

ArticleFoods (Basel, Switzerland)2021

Comparison of Home Use Tests with Differing Time and Order Controls.

Nahyung Lee, Jeehyun Lee

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Foods (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

2 authors.

Nahyung LeeDepartment of Food Science and Nutrition & Kimchi Research Institute, Pusan National University, Busan 46241, Korea.
Jeehyun LeeDepartment of Food Science and Nutrition & Kimchi Research Institute, Pusan National University, Busan 46241, Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-2102-7531

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Consumer tests are classified in terms of the location of testing as laboratory tests or central location tests (CLTs) and home use tests (HUTs). CLT is generally used in sensory tests due to the ease of test control, whereas HUT has higher validity because of real consumption. However, the lack of test control in HUT is a major issue. In order to investigate the error occurrence and efforts required to minimize errors, three groups of tests were designed differing time and order control and evaluation was conducted using six snacks with texture differences. Errors related to time, order, and consumer or sample number were higher for more controlled conditions, however, most errors were recoverable using identification information except for cases of no response. Additionally, consumers preferred to consume all snacks in the evening at home, which differed from the typical 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. evaluation time in CLT. However, the timing differed for consumers with self-reported snacking time. The research title that included the term 'home' might have influenced the participants' choice of location for evaluation. Overall, there was no significant difference between the results of groups despite different time and order controls, which could increase the applicability of HUT.

Indexed as

acceptabilityconsumer behaviorconsumer testcontexthome use test (HUT)real settingsnacking

Identifiers

PMID34205059
PMCPMC8227026

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.