Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38455166›Full record

ReviewFood science & nutrition2024

Understanding retort processing: A review.

Paulina Simoneth Jimenez, Sneh Punia Bangar, Mathew Suffern, William Scott Whiteside

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Food science & nutrition, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. ReportedFEMS microbes · 2026
    Article
  3. Quality attributes of canned whelk (Food science and biotechnology · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Conceptualizing the Commercialization of Human Milk: A Concept Analysis.Journal of human lactation : official journal of International Lactation Consultant Association · 2024
    Review
  8. Understanding retort processing: A review.Food science & nutrition · 2024
    Review
  9. 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.

Paulina Simoneth JimenezDepartment of Food, Nutrition and Packaging Sciences Clemson University Clemson South Carolina USA.
Sneh Punia BangarDepartment of Food, Nutrition and Packaging Sciences Clemson University Clemson South Carolina USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8675-6399
Mathew SuffernDepartment of Food, Nutrition and Packaging Sciences Clemson University Clemson South Carolina USA.
William Scott WhitesideDepartment of Food, Nutrition and Packaging Sciences Clemson University Clemson South Carolina USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5958-8967

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Retort processing is a food preservation technique to address the challenge posed by

Indexed as

food preservationretort technologythermal processing

Identifiers

PMID38455166
PMCPMC10916645

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.