Validation of rapid descriptive sensory methods against conventional descriptive analyses: A systematic review

A major drawback of conventional descriptive profile (CDP) in sensory evaluation is the long time spent in panel training. Rapid descriptive methods (RDM) have increased significantly. Some of them have been compared with CDP for validation. In Health Sciences, systematic reviews (SR) are performed to evaluate validation of diagnostic tests in relation to a gold standard method. SR present a well-defined protocol to summarize research evidence and to evaluate the quality of the studies with determined criteria. We adapted SR protocol to evaluate the validation of RDM against CDP as satisfactory procedures to obtain food characterization. We used "Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Study - PICOS" framework to design the research in which "Population" was food/ beverages; "intervention" were RDM, "Comparison" was CDP as gold standard, "Outcome" was the ability of RDM to generate similar descriptive profiles in comparison with CDP and "Studies" was sensory descriptive analyses. The proportion of studies concluding for similarity of the RDM with CDP ranged from 0% to 100%. Low and moderate risk of bias were reached by 87% and 13% of the studies, respectively, supporting the conclusions of SR. RDM with semi-trained assessors and evaluation of individual attributes presented higher percentages of concordance with CDP.