Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23446890›Full record

SynthesisThe American journal of clinical nutrition2013

Eating attentively: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of food intake memory and awareness on eating.

Eric Robinson, Paul Aveyard, Amanda Daley, Kate Jolly, Amanda Lewis, Deborah Lycett, Suzanne Higgs

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The American journal of clinical nutrition, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 90 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
90citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT03446729 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2014, after this paper: background citation

Enhancing Memory to Facilitate Weight Loss: Tracking, Recording and Coaching

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of California, San DiegoRan2014 to 2015Enrolled50ConditionsOverweight and ObesityArmsGuided Self-Help Behavioral Weight Loss
NCT03914508 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

An Open Label Pilot Study of Tracking and Behavior Change for Weight Loss in Adults

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of California, San DiegoRan2019 to 2023Enrolled49ConditionsOverweight, ObesityArmsMemory + Behavioral Weight Loss
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

90 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Article
  20. Article

30 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Eric RobinsonUniversity of Birmingham, Edgbaston, United Kingdom. eric.robinson@liv.ac.uk
Paul Aveyard
Amanda Daley
Kate Jolly
Amanda Lewis
Deborah Lycett
Suzanne Higgs

Funding

British Heart FoundationCancer Research UKMedical Research Council MR/K00414X/1Medical Research Council MR/K023195/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCognitive processes such as attention and memory may influence food intake, but the degree to which they do is unclear.

objectiveThe objective was to examine whether such cognitive processes influence the amount of food eaten either immediately or in subsequent meals.

designWe systematically reviewed studies that examined experimentally the effect that manipulating memory, distraction, awareness, or attention has on food intake. We combined studies by using inverse variance meta-analysis, calculating the standardized mean difference (SMD) in food intake between experimental and control groups and assessing heterogeneity with the I(2) statistic.

resultsTwenty-four studies were reviewed. Evidence indicated that eating when distracted produced a moderate increase in immediate intake (SMD: 0.39; 95% CI: 0.25, 0.53) but increased later intake to a greater extent (SMD: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.45, 1.07). The effect of distraction on immediate intake appeared to be independent of dietary restraint. Enhancing memory of food consumed reduced later intake (SMD: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.12, 0.68), but this effect may depend on the degree of the participants' tendencies toward disinhibited eating. Removing visual information about the amount of food eaten during a meal increased immediate intake (SMD: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.27, 0.68). Enhancing awareness of food being eaten may not affect immediate intake (SMD: 0.09; 95% CI: -0.42, 0.35).

conclusionsEvidence indicates that attentive eating is likely to influence food intake, and incorporation of attentive-eating principles into interventions provides a novel approach to aid weight loss and maintenance without the need for conscious calorie counting.

Indexed as

AttentionEnergy IntakeAwarenessEatingHumansMealsMemory

Identifiers

PMID23446890
PMCPMC3607652

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.