ArticleScientific reports2025
Development and evaluation of gluten free pasta from brown rice, quinoa, and chickpeas for celiac disease patients.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The demand for gluten-free products for people suffering from a gluten allergy is increasing. Therefore, the aim of this study was to produce high-quality gluten-free pasta from brown rice flour (BRF), quinoa flour (QF) and chickpea flour (CPF), semolina flour (S) was used as control sample. The chemical composition of the raw materials showed the higher protein, carbohydrate and fat content of CPF, S and QF, respectively. In addition, the content of Ca, K, and Fe was higher in CPF. The total concentration of essential amino acids in CPF, BRF and QF was between 38.9 and 34.04%. Pasta was prepared with different levels of CPF, BRF, and QF. The quality of the pasta was evaluated chemically and physically. The chemical analysis showed that the formula (BRQ5) had the highest protein, fat, ash and fiber content. The color analysis showed that the darkness of the pasta increased with increasing QF. The overall acceptability of the different pasta showed that the control (S) had the highest acceptability, followed by BR and BRQ1. The analysis of the texture profile showed that the hardness of the uncooked control pasta was the highest. In summary, it can be recommended to produce gluten-free pasta with the BRQ1 formula.
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.