Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37623400›Full record

ReviewInsects2023

Edible Insects: A Historical and Cultural Perspective on Entomophagy with a Focus on Western Societies.

Marianna Olivadese, Maria Luisa Dindo

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Insects, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed
27.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 95 citations in OpenAlex.

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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Marianna OlivadeseDepartment of Agricultural and Food Sciences, University of Bologna, Viale Fanin, 42, 40127 Bologna, Italy.
Maria Luisa DindoDepartment of Agricultural and Food Sciences, University of Bologna, Viale Fanin, 42, 40127 Bologna, Italy.
University of Bologna · IT

Funding

University of Bologna RFO2021
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The relationship between insects and humans throughout history has always been complex and multifaceted. Insects are both a source of fascination and fear for humans and have played important roles in human culture, economy, and health. Nowadays, there is growing interest in using insects as a sustainable and environmentally friendly source of protein and other nutrients. Entomophagy can be seen as a new opportunity for the food industry and global food security. In fact, insects require far fewer resources than traditional livestock, and there are many references to insect consumption in human history. The ancient Romans are known to have eaten various insects, including beetles, caterpillars, and locusts. Insects such as crickets, grasshoppers, and ants have been eaten for centuries and are still considered a delicacy in many parts of the world, especially in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and Oceania. Entomophagy has, thus, been a part of human history for thousands of years and continues to be an important food habit for many people around the world. These topics are explored in this article from a historical and cultural perspective (e.g., ecological, nutritional, spiritual, and socio-psychological), with a focus on the progressive acceptance of edible insects in Western societies, since this novel food has also its roots in the Western world.

Indexed as

cultural diversityentomophagyhistorical perspectivenovel foodsustainability

Identifiers

PMID37623400
PMCPMC10455489
OpenAlexW4385576609

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.