SynthesisJournal of food science2021
On the validity of longitudinal comparisons of central location consumer testing results prior to COVID-19 versus home use testing data during the pandemic.
Synthesis in Journal of food science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- On the validity of longitudinal comparisons of central location consumer testing results prior to COVID-19 versus home use testing data during the pandemic.Journal of food science · 2021Pooled it
- Consumer testing away from a sensory facility: Application of home-use test and no-contact home-use test.Food quality and preference · 2023Article
- Effects of Test Location and Sample Number on the Liking Ratings of Almond Beverage and Vegan Ramen Products.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Consumer testing assays a panel's liking of a food or other sensory stimulus. However, liking can be influenced by mood, with people feeling more uncomfortable, or more unhappy reporting lower liking ratings than those in a higher affect. Though consumer testing typically takes place as a central location test (CLT, usually in a set of standardized sensory booths), the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a global pivot to home use tests (HUTs), where panelists can taste and smell samples unmasked more safely while in their own homes. Unfortunately, as this situation differs in many ways to a central location test, this puts the validity of longitudinal comparisons of liking scores under question. Further, as people across the globe report feelings of worry, unease, and stress during the pandemic, this may present a second source of variation in affect with previous years. We tested a set of snack bar samples both at home and in a central location, in repeated measures with the same panel, to test the validity of comparisons across locations. We further compared CLT results to those when testing the same samples in a previous year. Finally, we performed a meta-analysis of existing data on this subject. While liking behavior in CLTs did not differ between years, panelists rated some samples higher when in their own homes, in line with results from the meta-analysis of previous reports. Interestingly, panelists in the study also assigned fewer penalties in the HUT, implying a less analytical mindset when in the home. Results suggest that care should be taken when comparing results taken at home during the COVID-19 pandemic to those taken previously in a central location. PRACTICAL APPLICATION: Consumer testing is applied in the food industry to evaluate a panelist's liking for a food product or stimulus. However, liking is also dependent on factors extrinsic to the samples tested. Thus, with the switch to in-home testing due to COVID-19, we compared liking scores from in-home and central locations testing, with higher scores common in HUTs.
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.