Possibility of polyphosphates reductions in processed cheese

Proučili smo mogućnosti zamjene fosfata solima za topljenje koje ne sadrže fosfate odnosno mogućnosti smanjenja njihove količine, a da pritom senzorska i reološka svojstva topljenog sira ostanu nepromijenjenima. Utvrdili smo količinu P2O5, reološke parametre te senzorske osobine uz određenje glavnog kemijskog sastava sirnih mješavina i konačnog proizvoda. Izradili smo devet uzoraka topljenog sira. Za referencijski uzorak odabrali smo topljeni sir koji izrađuju po standardnoj tehnologiji u tvornici Mlekopromet Ljutomer. Upotrijebili smo četiri soli za topljenje na fosfatnoj osnovi i četiri emulgatora. Utvrdili smo da su uzorci izrađeni bez fosfata neprihvatljivi, a da su uzorci, kojih je količina P2O5 na jedinicu proizvoda smanjena do 30% na osnovi senzorskog ocjenjivanja postigli prvi razred. Reološke analize su pokazale da su sirevi s dodatkom P2O5 imali više vrijednosti za povratnost tlačne deformacije (I, II) i tlačni otpor (I, II) od sireva bez ili onih sa smanjenom količinom P2O5.The possibility to replace the polyphosphates with emulsifying salts free of polyphosphates or to reduce their quantity in productions of processed cheese without changing their sensorial and rheological characteristics was investigated. The quantity of P2O5, rheological parameters and sensorial characteristics were evaluated with determination of main chemical compositions of cheese mixtures and final products. For reference sample was used processed cheese produced using standard technology in the dairy Mlekopromet Ljutomer. Four soluble salts on the basis of polyphosphates and four emulsifiers were used. The samples made without P2O5 unacceptable. The samples with reduced P2O5up to 30% were sensorily classified as a first class products. The rheological analysis have shown that the samples with addition of P2O5 had higher values of returnable pressure deformation (I and II) and pressure resistance (I and II) than cheese samples without or with reduced content of P2O

A website for pilot and feasibility studies: giving your research the best chance of success.

This editorial introduces a website for pilot and feasibility studies. Pilot and feasibility studies are about giving research the best chance of success, but must be performed well to have the greatest benefit. The website was developed by the Pilot and Feasibility Studies collaboration who developed the CONSORT Extension to Pilot and Feasibility Trials as a resource to help triallists and researchers perform well conducted pilot and feasibility studies. The website is also aimed at those interested in the latest methodology for these studies. We aim to keep the site updated with the latest publications and events related to pilot and feasibility studies and welcome feedback and suggestions from the research community on further resources or events to add

Quality of stepped-wedge trial reporting can be reliably assessed using an updated CONSORT: crowd-sourcing systematic review

OBJECTIVES: The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials extension for the stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial (SW-CRT) is a recently published reporting guideline for SW-CRTs. We assess the quality of reporting of a recent sample of SW-CRTs. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Quality of reporting was asssessed according to the 26 items in the new guideline using a novel crowd sourcing methodology conducted independently and in duplicate, with random assignment, by 50 reviewers. We assessed reliability of the quality assessments, proposing this as a novel way to assess robustness of items in reporting guidelines. RESULTS: Several items were well reported. Some items were very poorly reported, including several items that have unique requirements for the SW-CRT, such as the rationale for use of the design, description of the design, identification and recruitment of participants within clusters, and concealment of cluster allocation (not reported in more than 50% of the reports). Agreement across items was moderate (median percentage agreement was 76% [IQR 64 to 86]). Agreement was low for several items including the description of the trial design and why trial ended or stopped for example. CONCLUSIONS: When reporting SW-CRTs, authors should pay particular attention to ensure clear reporting on the exact format of the design with justification, as well as how clusters and individuals were identified for inclusion in the study, and whether this was done before or after randomization of the clusters, which are crucial for risk of bias assessments. Some items, including why the trial ended, might either not be relevant to SW-CRTs or might be unclearly described in the statement

Completeness of reporting and risks of overstating impact in cluster randomised trials: a systematic review

Overstating the impact of interventions through incomplete or inaccurate reporting can lead to inappropriate scale-up of interventions with low impact. Accurate reporting of the impact of interventions is of great importance in global health research to protect scarce resources. In global health, the cluster randomised trial design is commonly used to evaluate complex, multicomponent interventions, and outcomes are often binary. Complete reporting of impact for binary outcomes means reporting both relative and absolute measures. We did a systematic review to assess reporting practices and potential to overstate impact in contemporary cluster randomised trials with binary primary outcome. We included all reports registered in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials of two-arm parallel cluster randomised trials with at least one binary primary outcome that were published in 2017. Of 73 cluster randomised trials, most (60 [82%]) showed incomplete reporting. Of 64 cluster randomised trials for which it was possible to evaluate, most (40 [63%]) reported results in such a way that impact could be overstated. Care is needed to report complete evidence of impact for the many interventions evaluated using the cluster randomised trial design worldwide

Completeness of reporting and risks of overstating impact in cluster randomised trials: a systematic review

Overstating the impact of interventions through incomplete or inaccurate reporting can lead to inappropriate scale-up of interventions with low impact. Accurate reporting of the impact of interventions is of great importance in global health research to protect scarce resources. In global health, the cluster randomised trial design is commonly used to evaluate complex, multicomponent interventions, and outcomes are often binary. Complete reporting of impact for binary outcomes means reporting both relative and absolute measures. We did a systematic review to assess reporting practices and potential to overstate impact in contemporary cluster randomised trials with binary primary outcome. We included all reports registered in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials of two-arm parallel cluster randomised trials with at least one binary primary outcome that were published in 2017. Of 73 cluster randomised trials, most (60 [82%]) showed incomplete reporting. Of 64 cluster randomised trials for which it was possible to evaluate, most (40 [63%]) reported results in such a way that impact could be overstated. Care is needed to report complete evidence of impact for the many interventions evaluated using the cluster randomised trial design worldwide