| Title |
Designing a Score-Based Method for the Evaluation of the Nutritional Quality of the Gluten-Free Bakery Products and their Gluten-Containing Counterparts
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Plant Foods for Human Nutrition, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11130-018-0662-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Federico Morreale, Donato Angelino, Nicoletta Pellegrini |
| Abstract |
Gluten-free (GF) products are consumed both by individuals with celiac disease and by an increasing number of people with no specific medical needs. Although the technological quality of GF products has been recently improved, their nutritional quality is still scarcely addressed. Moreover, the few published studies report conflicting results, mostly because the information from product nutrition facts is the only considered factor. The aim of the present study was to develop a score-based method for the nutritional evaluation of 134 packaged Italian GF bakery products and to compare it with that of 162 matched gluten-containing (GC) food items. The score included the information from the nutrition facts and the presence/absence of some nutritionally relevant components in the ingredients list. Results indicated an overall low nutritional quality of the considered GF bakery products. Additionally, with the sole exception of GF bread substitutes, there was no difference in nutritional quality between GF and equivalent GC bakery products. Future research and development of GF bakery products may take advantage of this scoring method, as it may represent an easy approach to evaluate their nutritional quality. The present findings do not justify the consumption of packaged GF bakery products by people without any specific medical needs. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 67 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 10% |
| Researcher | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 15 | 22% |
| Unknown | 20 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 15 | 22% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 7% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Unknown | 29 | 43% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 April 2018.
All research outputs
#15,506,823
of 23,045,021 outputs
Outputs from Plant Foods for Human Nutrition
#474
of 705 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#208,054
of 326,539 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Plant Foods for Human Nutrition
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,045,021 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 705 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 326,539 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.