Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38892581›Full record

ArticleNutrients2024

Analysis of the Nutritional Composition of Ready-to-Use Meat Alternatives in Belgium.

Evelien Mertens, Peter Deriemaeker, Katrien Van Beneden

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nutrients, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

3 authors.

Evelien MertensDepartment of Health Care, Design and Technology, Nutrition and Dietetics Program, Erasmushogeschool Brussel, 1090 Brussels, Belgium.
Peter DeriemaekerDepartment of Health Care, Design and Technology, Nutrition and Dietetics Program, Erasmushogeschool Brussel, 1090 Brussels, Belgium.
Katrien Van BenedenDepartment of Health Care, Design and Technology, Nutrition and Dietetics Program, Erasmushogeschool Brussel, 1090 Brussels, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe interest in meat alternatives has increased over the years as people embrace more varied food choices because of different reasons. This study aims to analyse the nutritional composition of ready-to-use meat alternatives and compare them with meat (products).

methodsNutritional composition values were collected in 2022 of all ready-to-use meat alternatives in Belgian supermarkets, as well as their animal-based counterparts. A one-sample

resultsMinced meat and pieces/strips/cubes scored favourably on all norm values. Cheeseburgers/schnitzels, nut/seed burgers and sausages contained more than 10 g/100 g total fat. The saturated fat and salt content was lower than the norm value in each category. Legume burgers/falafel contained less than 10 g/100 g protein. Vegetarian/vegan minced meat and bacon contained fewer calories, total and saturated fat, and more fibre compared to their animal-based counterparts.

conclusionsMinced meat and pieces/strips/cubes came out as the most favourable categories regarding nutritional composition norm values. Vegetarian/vegan steak came out the least favourable compared to steak, while vegetarian/vegan minced meat and vegetarian/vegan bacon came out the most favourable compared to their animal-based counterparts.

Indexed as

Nutritive ValueAnimalsBelgiumDietary FatsDiet, VegetarianFast FoodsFood MarketsHumansMeatMeat ProductsMeat SubstitutesDietary Fatsmeat alternativeplant-basedprotein sourceveganvegetarian

Identifiers

PMID38892581
PMCPMC11175014

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.