Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35558740›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2022

Nutritional Quality of Meat Analogues: Results From the Food Labelling of Italian Products (FLIP) Project.

Sara Cutroneo, Donato Angelino, Tullia Tedeschi, Nicoletta Pellegrini, Daniela Martini, SINU Young Working Group

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in nutrition, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

6 authors.

Sara CutroneoFood and Drug Department, University of Parma, Parma, Italy.
Donato AngelinoFaculty of Bioscience and Agro-Food and Environmental Technology, University of Teramo, Teramo, Italy.
Tullia TedeschiFood and Drug Department, University of Parma, Parma, Italy.
Nicoletta PellegriniDepartment of Agricultural, Food, Environmental and Animal Sciences, University of Udine, Udine, Italy.
Daniela MartiniDepartment of Food, Environmental and Nutritional Sciences, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
SINU Young Working Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nowadays, the interest in meat substitutes is increasing, and consumers perceive their nutritional quality better than that of the animal products they intend to resemble. Therefore, this work aimed to investigate the overall nutritional quality of these new products. Regulated information [Regulation (EU) 1169/2011], the presence/absence of nutrition or health claim and organic declarations, the gluten-free indication, and the number of ingredients were collected from the food labels of 269 commercial meat analogues currently sold on the Italian market. Nutritional information of reference animal meat products was used to compare the nutrition profile. As an indicator of the nutritional quality, the Nutri-Score of meat analogues and counterparts was also determined. Plant-based steaks showed significantly higher protein, lower energy, fats and salt contents, and better Nutri-Scores than the other analogues. All the meat analogues showed a higher fibre content than meat products, while plant-based burgers and meatballs had lower protein contents than meat counterparts. Ready-sliced meat analogues showed a lower salt content than cured meats. Overall, all these plant-based products showed a longer list of ingredients than animal meat products. Results from this survey highlighted that plant-based steaks, cutlets, and cured meats have some favourable nutritional aspects compared to animal-based products. However, they cannot be considered a "

Indexed as

food labellingfood qualitymeat analoguesNutri-Scoreplant-based meat substitutes

Identifiers

PMID35558740
PMCPMC9090485

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.