Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27624678›Full record

SynthesisPublic health nutrition2017

A systematic review of methods to assess intake of fruits and vegetables among healthy European adults and children: a DEDIPAC (DEterminants of DIet and Physical Activity) study.

Fiona Riordan, Kathleen Ryan, Ivan J Perry, Matthias B Schulze, Lene Frost Andersen, Anouk Geelen, Pieter Van't Veer, Simone Eussen, Pieter Dagnelie, Nicole Wijckmans-Duysens and 1 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Public health nutrition, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Determinants of diet and physical activity (DEDIPAC): a summary of findings.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2017
    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

11 authors at 5 institutions in 5 countries.

Fiona Riordan1Department of Epidemiology and Public Health,University College Cork,Western Road,Cork,Republic of Ireland.
Kathleen Ryan2School of Applied Psychology,University College Cork,Cork,Republic of Ireland.
Ivan J Perry1Department of Epidemiology and Public Health,University College Cork,Western Road,Cork,Republic of Ireland.
Matthias B Schulze3Department of Molecular Epidemiology,German Institute of Human Nutrition,Potsdam-Rehbrücke,Germany.
Lene Frost Andersen4Department of Nutrition,Institute of Basic Medical Sciences,University of Oslo,Oslo,Norway.
Anouk Geelen5Division of Human Nutrition,Wageningen University,Wageningen,The Netherlands.
Pieter Van't Veer5Division of Human Nutrition,Wageningen University,Wageningen,The Netherlands.
Simone Eussen6Department of Epidemiology of the Faculty of Health,Medicine and Life Sciences,Maastricht University,Maastricht,The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5621-7944
Pieter Dagnelie6Department of Epidemiology of the Faculty of Health,Medicine and Life Sciences,Maastricht University,Maastricht,The Netherlands.
Nicole Wijckmans-Duysens6Department of Epidemiology of the Faculty of Health,Medicine and Life Sciences,Maastricht University,Maastricht,The Netherlands.
Janas M Harrington1Department of Epidemiology and Public Health,University College Cork,Western Road,Cork,Republic of Ireland.
University College Cork · IEMaastricht University · NLWageningen University & Research · NLGerman Institute of Human Nutrition · DEUniversity of Oslo · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveEvidence suggests that health benefits are associated with consuming recommended amounts of fruits and vegetables (F&V), yet standardised assessment methods to measure F&V intake are lacking. The current review aims to identify methods to assess F&V intake among children and adults in pan-European studies and inform the development of the DEDIPAC (DEterminants of DIet and Physical Activity) toolbox of methods suitable for use in future European studies.

designA literature search was conducted using three electronic databases and by hand-searching reference lists. English-language studies of any design which assessed F&V intake were included in the review.

settingStudies involving two or more European countries were included in the review. SUBJECTS: Healthy, free-living children or adults.

resultsThe review identified fifty-one pan-European studies which assessed F&V intake. The FFQ was the most commonly used (n 42), followed by 24 h recall (n 11) and diet records/diet history (n 7). Differences existed between the identified methods; for example, the number of F&V items on the FFQ and whether potatoes/legumes were classified as vegetables. In total, eight validated instruments were identified which assessed F&V intake among adults, adolescents or children.

conclusionsThe current review indicates that an agreed classification of F&V is needed in order to standardise intake data more effectively between European countries. Validated methods used in pan-European populations encompassing a range of European regions were identified. These methods should be considered for use by future studies focused on evaluating intake of F&V.

Indexed as

FruitVegetablesAdolescentAdultChildDietDiet SurveysEuropeFemaleHumansMaleYoung AdultDEDIPACDietary assessmentEuropeFruits and vegetables

Identifiers

PMID27624678
PMCPMC10261318
OpenAlexW2519511065

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.