ArticleClinical nutrition research2026
Comparative nutritional assessment of vegetarian and nonvegetarian ready-to-eat foods.
Article in Clinical nutrition research, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to assess the nutritional adequacy of vegetarian ready-to-eat convenience foods, focusing on gimbap, rice ball, and sandwich products.
methodsWe examined 114 vegetarian and 414 nonvegetarian ready-to-eat products and compared their energy and nutrient contents to gain useful insights for consumers when making informed choices and for producers when developing nutritionally balanced vegetarian convenience foods.
resultsCompared with nonvegetarian products, vegetarian convenience foods had a significantly greater carbohydrate content per serving and significantly lower protein, sodium, and cholesterol contents. Although vegetarian gimbap was significantly more costly than the nonvegetarian gimbap, its cholesterol and saturated fat contents were significantly lower. Vegetarian rice balls had a significantly lower trans fat content than their nonvegetarian counterparts. Sandwiches in the vegetarian options had a significantly higher sugars content but had significantly lower protein and sodium contents than those in the nonvegetarian options. Vegetarian convenience foods did not meet one-third of the daily nutrient reference values for a single meal, similar to their nonvegetarian counterparts, but their sodium content exceeded the daily reference value. However, unlike the nonvegetarian options, the sodium content of vegetarian sandwiches did not exceed the daily value.
conclusionVegetarian convenience foods contain higher levels of carbohydrates and sugars and lower levels of protein, sodium, and cholesterol than nonvegetarian convenience foods. Foods such as vegetarian gimbap, rice balls, and sandwiches do not provide sufficient energy or nutrients to meet the nutritional requirements for a single meal. Creating nutritionally balanced vegetarian convenience foods should be the focus when developing new vegetarian food products.
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.