ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2025
Adulteration and quality assessment of tomato paste: a study of the Lebanese market.
Article in Frontiers in nutrition, 2025. 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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Food adulteration has emerged as a significant global issue, impacting consumer health and fair-trade practices. This study aimed to evaluate the quality and potential adulteration with starch in tomato paste products available in the Lebanese market. A total of 41 local and imported tomato paste samples, without starch declarations, were collected from the Lebanese market and analyzed for starch usage and various quality parameters (total soluble solids, Bostwick consistency, viscosity, titratable acidity, color, and dry matter content), as well as compliance with Libnor and Codex Alimentarius standards. Results revealed that 37% of samples failed to meet starch usage standards, and 27% did not comply with the required total soluble solids (>24%), while all samples complied with acidity standards (<7%). Compliant samples had significantly higher values for total soluble solids, acidity, dry matter, and color compared to non-compliant ones (
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.