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

Area of Science:

• Food Science
• Sensory Evaluation
• Research Methodology

Background:

• Conventional descriptive profile (CDP) requires extensive panel training, limiting its efficiency.
• Rapid descriptive methods (RDM) have emerged as time-saving alternatives for sensory analysis.
• Validation of RDMs against CDP is crucial for reliable food characterization.

Purpose of the Study:

• To adapt systematic review (SR) protocols for evaluating the validation of RDMs against CDP.
• To assess the efficacy of RDMs in generating comparable food descriptive profiles to CDP.
• To determine the reliability and quality of studies validating RDMs.

Main Methods:

• Utilized a systematic review (SR) framework adapted from health sciences.
• Employed the Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Study (PICOS) framework for study design.
• Analyzed sensory descriptive analyses comparing RDMs (intervention) with CDP (comparison) for food/beverages (population).

Main Results:

• The proportion of studies finding RDM similarity to CDP varied widely (0%–100%).
• A significant majority of studies (87%) presented low risk of bias, with 13% moderate risk.
• RDMs using semi-trained assessors and evaluating individual attributes showed higher concordance with CDP.

Conclusions:

• Systematic review methodology is applicable for validating rapid descriptive methods in sensory science.
• RDMs are a viable alternative to CDP for food characterization, particularly under specific conditions.
• Future RDM development should consider semi-trained assessors and focused attribute evaluation for optimal performance.