Evidence mapPaperPMID 42450447Full record

ReviewFoods (Basel, Switzerland)2026

Effects of Edible Insect Enrichment of Meat-Based and Meat Analogue Products on the Nutritional Composition, Techno-Functional Properties, and Acceptability to Consumers: A Systematic Review.

Isaac Amoah, Mauro Lombardo, Charles Diako, Comfort Adjei-Boamah, Vanessa Adu Sarpong, Elaine Rush

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Foods (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Isaac AmoahDepartment of Biochemistry and Biotechnology, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi 00233, Ghana.ORCID 0000-0002-5342-5825
Mauro LombardoDepartment for the Promotion of Human Science and Quality of Life, San Raffaele Open University, Via di Val Cannuta, 247, 00166 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-7509-5487
Charles DiakoSchool of Food Technology and Natural Sciences, Massey University, Auckland 0632, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0002-8591-7445
Comfort Adjei-BoamahDepartment of Biochemistry and Biotechnology, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi 00233, Ghana.
Vanessa Adu SarpongDepartment of Biochemistry and Biotechnology, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi 00233, Ghana.ORCID 0009-0005-6696-1212
Elaine RushFaculty of Health and Environmental Studies, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland 1142, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0001-7713-6203

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMeat-based and meat analogue products are commonly consumed foods for protein nourishment across the globe. These food products are promising carrier media that can be targeted for the delivery of edible insect products as a strategy to overcome food neophobia. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effect of edible insect enrichment on the nutritional, physicochemical, techno-functional, and acceptability of meat-based and meat analogue products for consumers.

methodsA systematic search for relevant articles was conducted on the databases PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Scopus on 5 November 2025. A total of 25 papers were included.

resultsEdible insects and larvae from mealworms, crickets, grasshoppers, silkworm pupae, and superworms were commonly used to enrich meat-based and meat analogue products. Commonly reported meat products were sausages from pork and beef, pork patties, meat emulsion, and frankfurters. Soya flour was commonly used for meat analogue formulation.

conclusionsAcceptable edible insect incorporation is matrix-dependent, with conventional meat products generally tolerating low substitution levels (≈2.5-10%) before sensory and structural quality declines, whereas meat analogue systems can accommodate substantially higher inclusion (≈10-40% and, in some cases, up to ~60%). However, heterogeneity in formulations and sensory evaluation methods restricts direct comparison across studies.

Indexed as

consumer acceptabilityedible insectsinsect proteinmeat analoguesmeat-based productsprotein fortificationtechno-functional properties

Identifiers

PMID42450447
PMCPMC13360707

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.