Preservation of Monkfish (Lophius piscatorius) Fillets Through Dry-Aging and Impact of Processing on the Quality and Shelf Life When Compared to Fresh Fillets.

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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

1. From Fresh to Aged: Dynamics of Lipid Stability, Fatty Acid Profile, and Meat Quality of Dry-Aged Dorsal Epaxial Muscle of Mahi-Mahi (Coryphaena hippurus).Journal of food science · 2026
   Article
2. Comparative Effects of Dry and Wet Aging on Quality, Flavor Development, and Metabolomic Profiles in Grouper Fillets.Aquaculture nutrition · 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

5 authors.

Funding

Abstract

Indexed as