Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27101764›Full record

ArticleNutrition research (New York, N.Y.)2016

High compliance with dietary recommendations in a cohort of meat eaters, fish eaters, vegetarians, and vegans: results from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition-Oxford study.

Jakub G Sobiecki, Paul N Appleby, Kathryn E Bradbury, Timothy J Key

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Nutrition research (New York, N.Y.), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 122 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
122citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

122 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Assessment of vitamin A, vitamin BEuropean journal of nutrition · 2025
    Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Review
  15. Observational
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

62 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

4 authors.

Jakub G SobieckiCancer Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Richard Doll Building, Roosevelt Drive, Oxford OX3 7LF, UK; Department of Pediatrics, Nutrition and Metabolic Disorders, Children's Memorial Health Institute, Al. Dzieci Polskich 20, 04-730 Warsaw, Poland. Electronic address: jacob.sobiecki@ceu.ox.ac.uk.
Paul N ApplebyCancer Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Richard Doll Building, Roosevelt Drive, Oxford OX3 7LF, UK. Electronic address: paul.Appleby@ceu.ox.ac.uk.
Kathryn E BradburyCancer Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Richard Doll Building, Roosevelt Drive, Oxford OX3 7LF, UK. Electronic address: kathryn.bradbury@ceu.ox.ac.uk.
Timothy J KeyCancer Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Richard Doll Building, Roosevelt Drive, Oxford OX3 7LF, UK. Electronic address: tim.key@ceu.ox.ac.uk.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 16491Cancer Research UK C570/A11691Cancer Research UK C8221/A19170Medical Research Council MR/M012190/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate differences in dietary intakes between 30251 participants in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition-Oxford study, comprising 18 244 meat eaters, 4 531 fish eaters, 6 673 vegetarians, and 803 vegans aged 30 to 90 years who completed semiquantitative food frequency questionnaires. We hypothesized that these groups characterized by varying degrees of animal product exclusion have significantly different intakes of many nutrients, with possible implications for dietary adequacy and compliance with population dietary goals. Nutrient intakes were estimated including fortification in foods, but excluding dietary supplements. Dietary supplementation practices were also evaluated. Highly significant differences were found in estimated nutrient intakes between meat eaters and vegans, with fish eaters and vegetarians usually having intermediate values. Meat eaters had the highest energy intakes, followed by fish eaters and vegetarians, whereas vegans had the lowest intakes. Vegans had the highest intakes of polyunsaturated fatty acids, dietary fiber, vitamins C and E, folate, magnesium, iron, and copper. Meat eaters had the highest intake of saturated fatty acids, protein, vitamin B2, vitamin B12, vitamin D, zinc, and iodine. Fish eaters had the highest intakes of calcium and selenium. There were no statistically significant differences in sodium and potassium intakes between dietary groups. With the exception of sodium intake, compliance with population dietary goals was high across diet groups. The results suggested a high prevalence of inadequacy for dietary vitamin B12 and iodine in vegans. The diet groups under study showed striking differences in dietary intakes, with possible implications for compliance with dietary recommendations, as well as cardiometabolic diseases risk.

Indexed as

DietDiet, VegetarianFishesMeatNeoplasmsPatient ComplianceAdultAgedAnimalsDietary FatsDietary FiberDietary SupplementsDiet RecordsDiet, VeganEnergy IntakeEuropeDietary FatsDietary FiberIodineMicronutrientsVitamin B 12Cross-sectional studyNutrientsNutrition assessmentRisk assessmentVeganVegetarian

Identifiers

PMID27101764
PMCPMC4844163

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.