Estrategia de marketing para la empresa SanCor y su línea de yogures Yogs

A nivel mundial, el sector lácteo enfrenta un importante desafío con respecto a la posibilidad de satisfacer la demanda de productos y derivados lácteos en la próxima década. En Argentina, en el caso del yogur, su consumo ha venido creciendo en las últimas dos décadas llegando a consumir más de 12 litros per cápita en 2009. SanCor es una de las principales empresas de productos lácteos en el mercado argentino y posee una participación importante del mercado de yogures, se ubica en segundo lugar después de la empresa Dannone. El objetivo general de la presente investigación consiste en identificar y proponer una estrategia de marketing para la empresa SanCor y su línea de yogures Yogs que le permita ganar una mayor participación en este mercado. Se define como población objetivo a consumidores hombres y mujeres, residentes en Argentina de clase media y/o alta, que busquen una bebida de rápida disponibilidad, saludable y les guste tanto el café, como el yogurt. Para el análisis se realiza una investigación de mercado donde se aplican encuestas y, mediante un análisis de elección múltiple, se estima la disposición a probar un yogur sabor a café. Los resultados indican que la marca y el sabor son los atributos que más incidencia tendrían en la elección del nuevo yogur, mientras el precio es un factor secundario de influencia. Finalmente se propone realizar una estrategia de relleno de línea de la marca Yogs innovando en un nuevo yogur sabor a café, esto basado en los resultados de las encuestas en las que se muestran que el 89 por ciento de los encuestados estarían dispuestos a probar este nuevo yogurt, apalancados en las fortalezas que cuenta la empresa y aprovechando la oportunidad de innovar en la línea de yogures por presentar este sector una demanda creciente y poder obtener una mayor participación en este mercad

Comportamiento reológico de la pulpa de mango (Mangifera indica L.) liofilizada con encapsulantes

Mango is an exotic fruit with great agro-industrial potential and high consumption due to its nutritional characteristics and sensory attributes. However, there is little research on the rheological properties of freeze-dried mango pulp that can be used in agro-industrial processes. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of freeze-drying Edward variety mango pulp with encapsulants, maltodextrin (MD) and gum arabic (GA), on rheological behavior. The results showed that mango pulp formulations that have not suffered any type of fresh and lyophilized transformation have a pseudoplastic behavior and present an adequate fit to the Mizrahi - Berk model (R2˃0.99). The fluidity curves of the lyophilized mango pulp samples show a decrease in apparent viscosity, being the M6 treatment (0% G.A. – 2% M.D.) which maintains similar rheological characteristics to fresh mango pulp.El mango es un fruto exótico con gran potencial agroindustrial y de elevado consumo por sus características nutricionales y atributos sensoriales. Sin embargo, son escasos las investigaciones acerca de las propiedades reológicas en pulpa de mango liofilizada que puedan ser utilizados en procesos agroindustriales. El objetivo del presente estudio fue evaluar el efecto de la liofilización de pulpa de mango variedad Edward con encapsulantes, maltodextrina (M.D.) y goma arábica (G.A.), sobre el comportamiento reológico. Los resultados evidenciaron que las formulaciones en pulpa de mango que no han sufrido ningún tipo de transformación frescas y liofilizadas tienen un comportamiento pseudoplástico y presentan un adecuado ajuste al modelo Mizrahi – Berk (R2˃0,99). Las curvas de fluidez de las muestras de pulpa de mango liofilizadas presentan una disminución en la viscosidad aparente, siendo el tratamiento M6 (0% G.A. – 2% M.D.) el que mantiene similares características reológicas a la pulpa de mango fresco

Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

Funder: laura and john arnold foundationBACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GEHFX ). METHODS: In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. RESULTS: A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I2 = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care

Additional file 2 of Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Additional file 2. Email invitation

Additional file 7 of Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Additional file 7. Sensitivity analyses: various meta-analytic approaches

Additional file 1 of Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Additional file 1. Search strategy

Additional file 5 of Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Additional file 5. Risk of bias

Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Abstract Background Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GEHFX ). Methods In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung–Knapp–Sidik–Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. Results A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I2 = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis. Conclusions Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care

Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Abstract Background Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GEHFX ). Methods In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung–Knapp–Sidik–Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. Results A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I2 = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis. Conclusions Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care