Trial reportEuropean journal of clinical nutrition2016
Differences in the effects of school meals on children's cognitive performance according to gender, household education and baseline reading skills.
Trial report in European journal of clinical nutrition, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of food supplements on early child development in children with moderate acute malnutrition: A randomised 2 x 2 x 3 factorial trial in Burkina Faso.PLoS medicine · 2020Trial
- A Regional Scoping Review of School-Based Nutrition Interventions Conducted Across Nordic Countries.Health science reports · 2026Review
- An Overview on the Associations between Health Behaviors and Brain Health in Children and Adolescents with Special Reference to Diet Quality.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Review
- Biomarkers of a Healthy Nordic Diet-From Dietary Exposure Biomarkers to Microbiota Signatures in the Metabolome.Nutrients · 2019Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesWe previously found that the OPUS School Meal Study improved reading and increased errors related to inattention and impulsivity. This study explored whether the cognitive effects differed according to gender, household education and reading proficiency at baseline. SUBJECTS/
methodsThis is a cluster-randomised cross-over trial comparing Nordic school meals with packed lunch from home (control) for 3 months each among 834 children aged 8 to 11 years. At baseline and at the end of each dietary period, we assessed children's performance in reading, mathematics and the d2-test of attention. Interactions were evaluated using mixed models. Analyses included 739 children.
resultsAt baseline, boys and children from households without academic education were poorer readers and had a higher d2-error%. Effects on dietary intake were similar in subgroups. However, the effect of the intervention on test outcomes was stronger in boys, in children from households with academic education and in children with normal/good baseline reading proficiency. Overall, this resulted in increased socioeconomic inequality in reading performance and reduced inequality in impulsivity. Contrary to this, the gender difference decreased in reading and increased in impulsivity. Finally, the gap between poor and normal/good readers was increased in reading and decreased for d2-error%.
conclusionsThe effects of healthy school meals on reading, impulsivity and inattention were modified by gender, household education and baseline reading proficiency. The differential effects might be related to environmental aspects of the intervention and deserves to be investigated further in future school meal trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27302673What 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.