ArticleInsects2026
Edible Insects as Human Food: Perceptions of Individuals from Six Countries.
Article in Insects, 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Edible insects (EIs) have been suggested as a sustainable alternative to meat from traditional sources. However, despite EIs being consumed by humans since time immemorial, it is also true that, in many areas, especially in Western countries, there is some resistance and even neophobia to their acceptance as food. This work aimed to investigate the perceptions about EIs and validate a corresponding scale. This descriptive cross-sectional study was carried out by means of a questionnaire survey on a sample of 3711 participants in six countries (Croatia, Lebanon, Lithuania, Mexico, Portugal and Romania). Data were analysed by factor and cluster analyses, as well as other statistical tools. The results showed that, out of the initial 36 items in the questionnaire, 24 were validated in the scale of perceptions, distributed across six factors. Cluster analysis showed that the participants could be grouped according to three clusters (Traditionalists, Shoppers and Innovators). Statistical tests revealed significant differences (
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.