Evaluation of Rheological Properties of Pork Myofibrillar Protein Gel and Physicochemical and Textural Properties of Low-Fat Model Sausages Treated with

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Evaluation of physicochemical and textural properties of emulsified pork model sausages treated with Rhynchosia nulubilis powders from different drying methods.Animal bioscience · 2026
   Article
2. Evaluation of rheological properties of pork myofibrillar protein gel and physicochemical and textural properties of low-fat model sausages containing various levels of chickpea powder dried by different methods.Animal bioscience · 2026
   Article
3. Effects of Postmortem Aging on Nutritional Quality and Myofibrillar Protein Function in Bactrian Camel Meat.Journal of food science · 2026
   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

2 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

Indexed as