ArticleCureus2023
A Study on the Awareness and Perceptions Regarding Monosodium Glutamate and its Potential Health Effects Amongst the Urban Population of Saudi Arabia.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Monosodium glutamate (MSG), a common global food additive in processed foods, influences flavors and textures due to its chemical complexity and nutritional intricacy. Despite an annual production of 1.9 million tons and historical safety concerns, the multifaceted impact on health, ranging from metabolic disorders to neurological and cardiovascular implications, necessitates ongoing research for informed consumption and balanced dietary practices. Materials and methods This cross-sectional study investigates MSG-associated intricacies among Saudi Arabia's urban population. The research included questionnaire development, translation, and cultural adaptation, and was validated by nutrition experts. A sample size of 420 was calculated for a 95% confidence level. Data collection occurred from September 13 to October 31, 2023, and ethical considerations were ensured. Statistical analysis, including chi-square tests, regression analysis, and SPSS, explored intricacy relationships. Results The MSG intricacy study in Saudi Arabia's urban population, involving 420 respondents, showed statistically significant correlations (P < 0.05) in demographics. The key findings indicate an awareness of the impact of MSG on health, its associations with various conditions, and strong support for its exclusion from foods. Region, gender, age, and social status correlations highlighted diverse perspectives. The Western province showed the highest response rate at 42.61%, prompting regional awareness questions. Gender dynamics showed that 90.47% of the respondents were females, emphasizing potential gender-specific concerns. Concentration among ages 20-30 (61.9%) underscored generational factors. While commendable baseline awareness was noted, 73.09% of the participants believing MSG is harmful prompts further investigation. Emotional responses, including happiness (25.95%) and frustration (18.33%), highlight the complexity of the individuals' experiences, emphasizing the need for tailored communication strategies. Conclusion The MSG intricacy study in Saudi Arabia's urban population reveals insights into knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors, emphasizing the need for nuanced interventions considering regional and emotional differences. The findings underscore health concerns, supporting regulations, and knowledge impact on behavior. This survey serves as a valuable tool for informed public discourse and decision-making in the unique socio-cultural context of urban Saudi Arabia.
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.