Olfactory and Gustatory Perception among Plant-Based vs. Omnivorous Dieters: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work is well done and may be a good start for other research. The results you have obtained say little about the perceptions of people with PBD intakes and omnivores. It does not seem that the differences between one form of diet and another have important differences in the aspects that they deal with.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

The work is well done and may be a good start for other research. The results you have obtained say little about the perceptions of people with PBD intakes and omnivores. It does not seem that the differences between one form of diet and another have important differences in the aspects that they deal with.

Thank you for your feedback. We have noted your point in the discussion. We agree with you that these results require further empirical work to fully understand the relationships between dietary patterns and sensory perception.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.Please describe the definition of data that you mentioned in the section of 2.3 Data Extraction (Line 133), the data would be that you got from the tables in the published literatures, or you ask the authors to provide the raw data to you.

 

2.Can you compare/discuss the data between two different designs, comparative design and pre-post design? To me this may affect the outcome/result.

 

3.Please rephrase [This review included studies that tested gustatory or olfactory perception, including thresholds, intensity, and hedonic perception to supra-threshold stimuli. Gustatory studies encompassed assessments of five basic tastes (sweet, salty, sour, umami, bitter), as well as metallic and astringent.] (Lines 198~200) since astringent is classified as tactile perception not a gustatory perception.

 

4.Please clarify the definition of [non-vegetarians] in the statement [Three of the reviewed studies had measured the intensity and sensitivity to bitterness using either 6-n-propylthiouracil (PROP) or Phenylthiocarbamide (PTC). Choi [54] noted significantly higher sensitivity to PROP in vegetarians compared to non-vegetarians….] (Lines 205, 206). Will it be still in PBD or omnivores?

Author Response

Reviewer 2

1. Please describe the definition of data that you mentioned in the section of 2.3 Data Extraction (Line 133), the data would be that you got from the tables in the published literatures, or you ask the authors to provide the raw data to you.

We have now revised the description of the ‘study information’ and ‘outcome data’ extracted from the studies in this section. Please see highlighted sections in the attached MS.

 

2. Can you compare/discuss the data between two different designs, comparative design and pre-post design? To me this may affect the outcome/result.

Thank you for this important point. Unfortunately, due to the small number of studies suitable for meta-analysis we were unable to perform a meta-regression to evaluate the effects of study design on findings. We have now included this point in the Discussion.

 

3. Please rephrase [This review included studies that tested gustatory or olfactory perception, including thresholds, intensity, and hedonic perception to supra-threshold stimuli. Gustatory studies encompassed assessments of five basic tastes (sweet, salty, sour, umami, bitter), as well as metallic and astringent.] (Lines 198~200) since astringent is classified as tactile perception not a gustatory perception.

We have reworded this sentence as suggested, thank you.

 

4. Please clarify the definition of [non-vegetarians] in the statement [Three of the reviewed studies had measured the intensity and sensitivity to bitterness using either 6-n-propylthiouracil (PROP) or Phenylthiocarbamide (PTC). Choi [54] noted significantly higher sensitivity to PROP in vegetarians compared to non-vegetarians….] (Lines 205, 206). Will it be still in PBD or omnivores?

We have now clarified in text that the definition of non-vegetarian in the study refers to omnivores instead of any other form of PBD follower. Thank you.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, the topic of your work is current. Methodologically, it is well structured and the application of Prisma is correct. In the section 3, there were excluded 543 records (manuscripts). Based on my point of view, I would recommend specifying the reasons for exclusion 

Author Response

Dear Authors, the topic of your work is current. Methodologically, it is well structured and the application of Prisma is correct. In the section 3, there were excluded 543 records (manuscripts). Based on my point of view, I would recommend specifying the reasons for exclusion.

Thank you for your positive feedback and suggestion. We have now included a description of the exclusion reasons in Section 3.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study conducted by Mo et al. is about an emergent and relevant topic. In my point of view, after the needed revisions it should be considered for publication in Sustainability.

The study's main conclusions should be highlighted in the abstract, as well as some practical and policy implications, and directions for future investigations.

Table 2, Figure 2, and Table 3: The references should be formatted according to the journal’s guidelines.

The Discussion section should be better organized. I suggest the authors subdivide it into distinct subsections (gustatory perception; olfactive perception…) for better comprehension.

Lines 268-275: This is not a discussion and should be removed from this section.

Lines 275-277: “Additionally, the literature consistently suggested that individuals following a PBD perceived meat-related odours as less pleasant when compared to omnivorous dieters.” – References are missing for this statement.

 

The conclusions mentioned by the authors are too brief for this study. The authors should expand this section and provide more relevant data based on their research. 

Author Response

The study conducted by Mo et al. is about an emergent and relevant topic. In my point of view, after the needed revisions it should be considered for publication in Sustainability.

1. The study's main conclusions should be highlighted in the abstract, as well as some practical and policy implications, and directions for future investigations.

Thank you for your positive feedback. We have now highlighted the study’s conclusions and implications in the abstract as advised.

 

2. Table 2, Figure 2, and Table 3: The references should be formatted according to the journal’s guidelines.

Thank you for pointing this out. We have amended the references in Table 2, Figure 2, and Table 3 accordingly.

 

3. The Discussion section should be better organized. I suggest the authors subdivide it into distinct subsections (gustatory perception; olfactive perception…) for better comprehension.

Thank you for suggesting this. We have divided the discussion section into sub-sections as advised.

 

4. Lines 268-275: This is not a discussion and should be removed from this section.

As you suggested, we have removed this from the discussion section. Thank you.

 

5. Lines 275-277: “Additionally, the literature consistently suggested that individuals following a PBD perceived meat-related odours as less pleasant when compared to omnivorous dieters.” – References are missing for this statement.

Thank you for this comment. We revised this sentence to clarify that this point was deduced from our current study.

 

6. The conclusions mentioned by the authors are too brief for this study. The authors should expand this section and provide more relevant data based on their research.

We have expanded the conclusion sections in the revised MS as advised. Thank you.