ArticleNutrients2023
Nutritional Assessment of Plant-Based Meat Products Available on Hong Kong Market: A Cross-Sectional Survey.
Article in Nutrients, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fatty acid composition of ground-beef products and their plant-based meat substitutes available in Hungary.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- 'Do plant-based meats offer a steppingstone towards healthier choices? A cross-sectional audit of the UK market'.Journal of nutritional science · 2026Article
- Dietary guidance on plant-based meat alternatives for individuals wanting to increase plant protein intake.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Article
- Effect ofFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Protein and Amino Acid Adequacy and Food Consumption by Processing Level in Vegans in Brazil.JAMA network open · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPlant-based meat (PBM) takes up ever-increasing market shares and draws great attention from both customers and retailers these days. However, little is known about the nutritional quality of PBM products.
objectiveThis study intended to profile and evaluate the overview nutrition of PBM with equivalent meat products on the Hong Kong market.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional survey of 274 PBM and 151 meat products from 27 different brands on the Hong Kong market in October 2022. The nutritional differences between PBM and meat products were assessed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and two independent sample t-test. The nutritional quality of PBMs was evaluated according to nutrient reference value, front-of-package (FoP) criteria and nutritional score.
resultsPBM had relatively lower energy density, total fat, saturated fat, protein, and salt compared to meat. According to the FoP criteria, 91.36%, 17.88%, and 99.34% of PBMs were labeled as medium to high in fat, salt, and sugar, respectively. Through ingredient analysis of 81 PBM products, soy and canola were the main source of protein and fat.
conclusionsPBM products have a roughly better nutrient quality compared to muscle-based meat, though there is still potential for further refinement in terms of production, consumption, and regulation.
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.