Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24983245›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2014

Watching TV and food intake: the role of content.

Colin D Chapman, Victor C Nilsson, Hanna Å Thune, Jonathan Cedernaes, Madeleine Le Grevès, Pleunie S Hogenkamp, Christian Benedict, Helgi B Schiöth

Abstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 3 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

8 authors.

Colin D ChapmanDept. of Neuroscience, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Victor C NilssonDept. of Neuroscience, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Hanna Å ThuneDept. of Neuroscience, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Jonathan CedernaesDept. of Neuroscience, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Madeleine Le GrevèsDept. of Neuroscience, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Pleunie S HogenkampDept. of Neuroscience, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Christian BenedictDept. of Neuroscience, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Helgi B SchiöthDept. of Neuroscience, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Obesity is a serious and growing health concern worldwide. Watching television (TV) represents a condition during which many habitually eat, irrespective of hunger level. However, as of yet, little is known about how the content of television programs being watched differentially impacts concurrent eating behavior. In this study, eighteen normal-weight female students participated in three counter-balanced experimental conditions, including a 'Boring' TV condition (art lecture), an 'Engaging' TV condition (Swedish TV comedy series), and a no TV control condition during which participants read (a text on insects living in Sweden). Throughout each condition participants had access to both high-calorie (M&Ms) and low-calorie (grapes) snacks. We found that, relative to the Engaging TV condition, Boring TV encouraged excessive eating (+52% g, P = 0.009). Additionally, the Engaging TV condition actually resulted in significantly less concurrent intake relative to the control 'Text' condition (-35% g, P = 0.05). This intake was driven almost entirely by the healthy snack, grapes; however, this interaction did not reach significance (P = 0.07). Finally, there was a significant correlation between how bored participants were across all conditions, and their concurrent food intake (beta = 0.317, P = 0.02). Intake as measured by kcals was similarly patterned but did not reach significance. These results suggest that, for women, different TV programs elicit different levels of concurrent food intake, and that the degree to which a program is engaging (or alternately, boring) is related to that intake. Additionally, they suggest that emotional content (e.g. boring vs. engaging) may be more associated than modality (e.g. TV vs. text) with concurrent intake.

Indexed as

EatingEmotionsFeeding BehaviorSnacksTelevisionFemaleHumans

Identifiers

PMID24983245
PMCPMC4077693

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.