Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35721393›Full record

ReviewCurrent research in food science2022

Plant-based meat analogs: A review with reference to formulation and gastrointestinal fate.

Anum Ishaq, Shafeeqa Irfan, Arooba Sameen, Nauman Khalid

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current research in food science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing 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

40 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Engineering Processes for Plant-Based Meat Analogs: Current Status and Future Outlook.Comprehensive reviews in food science and food safety · 2025
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

4 authors.

Anum IshaqDepartment of Food Science and Technology, School of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Management and Technology, Lahore, Pakistan.
Shafeeqa IrfanDepartment of Food Science and Technology, School of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Management and Technology, Lahore, Pakistan.
Arooba SameenDepartment of Food Science and Technology, School of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Management and Technology, Lahore, Pakistan.
Nauman KhalidDepartment of Food Science and Technology, School of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Management and Technology, Lahore, Pakistan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The discussion about the development and consumption of plant-based meat alternatives has been raised since numerous decades and has become the topic of prime concern these days. Recently, the market of plant-based meat alternatives has enormously expanded. With the aim of investigating the present scenario of research on meat analogs and defining the future research areas, reasons for shifting the trends towards consumption of meat analogs due to several health and environmental issues, potential sources and technologies needed for the development of meat analogs, physicochemical properties of meat analogs, functionality of ingredients used for manufacturing plant-based meat analogs, gastrointestinal fate of meat analogs and resulting consumer acceptability are summarized in this review. Studies have revealed that various health and environmental concerns are associated with the meat production which is the key driving force for the development of meat analogs. Recently, modern structuring techniques of plant-based meat alternatives have improved their functionality, however, a need exists to focus on improving the functionality, sensory characteristics, safety, and selection of suitable ingredients for the production of meat analogs. Additionally, the consumers' acceptability towards meat analogs is quite unsatisfactory which needs to be improved through proper research and creating awareness. Moreover, the gastrointestinal fate of the plant-based meat analogs needs further investigation in order to have a better understanding regarding the nutrient bioavailability of these products. The present review will be helpful in highlighting the current situation regarding the fate of meat analogs and opening new horizons of research in this domain.

Indexed as

Consumer behaviorFunctionalityGastrointestinal fateMeat analogsPhysicochemical properties

Identifiers

PMID35721393
PMCPMC9198813

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.