ReviewFoods (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Quality Multiverse of Beef and Pork Meat in a Single Score.
Review in Foods (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. 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, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Consumer Attitudes Towards Health, Nutritional and Environmental Concerns of Beef Consumption by Confronting Different Information.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A Systematic Review of Nutraceuticals from the Perspective of Life-Cycle Assessment.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Freshness and Spoilage Patterns of Wild and Farmed Tropical Fish Species with Major Commercial Importance Originating from Saudi Arabian Waters.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- A Single-Cell Atlas of Porcine Skeletal Muscle Reveals Mechanisms That Regulate Intramuscular Adipogenesis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Analysis of beef quality according to color changes using computer vision and white-box machine learning techniques.Heliyon · 2023Article
- Quality and Oral Processing Characteristics of Traditional Serbian Ćevap Influenced by Game Meat.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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The rationale behind this review is the potential of developing a single score tool for meat quality evaluation based on visual and sensorial assessments of fresh meat. Based on the known sensory wheel concept, the first step was to create quality wheels capturing most common intrinsic and extrinsic quality cues of pork and beef outlined in the latest scientific papers. This resulted in identifying meat color, sensory characteristics and fat content as the most important intrinsic quality cues of fresh beef and pork. Furthermore, the highest number of studies showed the importance of price, certification logos and brand for beef quality evaluation. According to recent articles, price, breed, animal welfare and a veterinary certificate are the most important extrinsic attributes for pork consumers. The second step was to develop a single-score tool named the "Meat quality index". It has been developed in line with published approaches of different total quality index concepts used in the food sector, providing insights into its application in the meat sector. As a result, this review proposes a unique approach in using quality index application, through the consumer's preferences aspect of fresh meat.
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.