Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42254720›Full record

ReviewScientifica2026

Efficiency and Sustainability in Food Supply Chains: A Systematic Analysis.

Abebaw Hailu Fikire, Elena Viktorovna Korchagina

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Scientifica, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Abebaw Hailu FikireGraduate School of Service and Trade, Institute of Industrial Management, Economics and Trade, Peter the Great Saint Petersburg Polytechnic University, P.O. Box 195221, Saint Petersburg, Russia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6356-6701
Elena Viktorovna KorchaginaGraduate School of Service and Trade, Institute of Industrial Management, Economics and Trade, Peter the Great Saint Petersburg Polytechnic University, P.O. Box 195221, Saint Petersburg, Russia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3070-2508

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The inefficiency of food supply chain is a critical challenge of the global food system. Improving the efficiency and sustainability of food supply chain is essential to ensure food security and poverty reduction. The purpose of this study is to define efficiency and sustainability from the context of food supply chains and develop a conceptual framework illustrating the relationship among factors that influence efficiency and sustainability of food supply chain. The systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines through encompassing 44 research articles published between 2020 and 2024 in Scopus and Web of Science indexed journals. The study revealed that distribution of annual publications has increased with some fluctuation over the reviewed period; Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute was the leading publisher in the field of food supply chain. The first authors from United Kingdom and Italy were the most active principal investigators in conducting scientific research articles in the field of efficiency and sustainability of food supply chain. The findings of this research provide practical significance in clearly pointing to the directions for further study for other scholars to open new research areas, solve existing problems, and create new approaches. This review contributes to academic knowledge, policymaking, and practical implications aimed at building more efficient and sustainable food supply chains worldwide.

Indexed as

efficiencyfood supplysupply chainssustainabilitysystematic analysis

Identifiers

PMID42254720
PMCPMC13239221

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.