ReviewNutrition journal2015
The challenges of nutrition policymaking.
Review in Nutrition journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- A randomized controlled trial of the effects of whole grains versus refined grains diets on the microbiome in pregnancy.Scientific reports · 2022Trial
- Informatics for your Gut: at the Interface of Nutrition, the Microbiome, and Technology.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2023Review
- An analysis of the recent US dietary guidelines process in light of its federal mandate and a National Academies report.PNAS nexus · 2022Article
- Food-based dietary guidelines in Spain: an assessment of their methodological quality.European journal of clinical nutrition · 2022Review
- Governing evidence use in the nutrition policy process: evidence and lessons from the 2020 Canada food guide.Nutrition reviews · 2022Article
- Introduction to the SIMPLE Macro, a Tool to Increase the Accessibility of 24-Hour Dietary Recall Analysis and Modeling.The Journal of nutrition · 2021Article
- Challenges to generating evidence-informed policy and the role of systematic reviews and (perceived) conflicts of interest.Journal of communication in healthcare · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In my over three decades of work in the field of food and nutrition, I have participated in many efforts that seek new policy initiatives in the hopes that these programs can curb rates of obesity and chronic disease and help consumers make healthier dietary choices. Because of the profound effect that many of these policies have on consumers, the food environment, federal nutrition assistance programs and subsequent policy and regulatory recommendations, it is imperative that only the strongest, best available evidence is used to set policy. This review evaluates methods by which current nutrition policies use scientific research as well as provides recommendations for how best to ensure future nutrition policies are truly science-based and likely to have a meaningful impact on public health. Specifically, this review will: Describe the current food and nutrition policy environment in the US Examine how science is used in federal food and nutrition policymaking efforts, using the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) as an example Describe strong versus weak science as well as what types of studies are most appropriate for use in policymaking Discuss the potential effects and consequences of making policy recommendations in the absence of scientific consensus or agreement Make recommendations to support the present and ongoing development of science-based policy likely to positively impact public health.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.