Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27649242›Full record

SynthesisNutrients2016

A Systematic Review of Athletes' and Coaches' Nutrition Knowledge and Reflections on the Quality of Current Nutrition Knowledge Measures.

Gina L Trakman, Adrienne Forsyth, Brooke L Devlin, Regina Belski

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Nutrients, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 105 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
105citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
7.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

105 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 218 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Nutritional knowledge of team sport athletes.Journal of nutritional science · 2026
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. Article

45 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Gina L TrakmanSchool of Allied Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne 3086, Australia. g.trakman@latrobe.edu.au.
Adrienne ForsythSchool of Allied Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne 3086, Australia. A.forsyth@latrobe.edu.au.
Brooke L DevlinMary MacKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne 3000, Australia. Brooke.Devlin@acu.edu.au.
Regina BelskiSchool of Allied Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne 3086, Australia. R.Belski@latrobe.edu.au.
La Trobe University · AUAustralian Catholic University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextNutrition knowledge can influence dietary choices and impact on athletic performance. Valid and reliable measures are needed to assess the nutrition knowledge of athletes and coaches.

objectives(1) To systematically review the published literature on nutrition knowledge of adult athletes and coaches and (2) to assess the quality of measures used to assess nutrition knowledge. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscuss, Web of Science, and SCOPUS. STUDY SELECTION: 36 studies that provided a quantitative measure of nutrition knowledge and described the measurement tool that was used were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Participant description, questionnaire description, results (mean correct and responses to individual items), study quality, and questionnaire quality. DATA SYNTHESIS: All studies were of neutral quality. Tools used to measure knowledge did not consider health literacy, were outdated with regards to consensus recommendations, and lacked appropriate and adequate validation. The current status of nutrition knowledge in athletes and coaches is difficult to ascertain. Gaps in knowledge also remain unclear, but it is likely that energy density, the need for supplementation, and the role of protein are frequently misunderstood.

conclusionsPrevious reports of nutrition knowledge need to be interpreted with caution. A new, universal, up-to-date, validated measure of general and sports nutrition knowledge is required to allow for assessment of nutrition knowledge.

Indexed as

AthletesHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeSports Nutritional Physiological PhenomenaAthletic PerformanceChoice BehaviorDatabases, FactualDietDietary SupplementsFood PreferencesHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRisk AssessmentSportsathletecoachdietary knowledgemeasurenutritional knowledgequestionnairesportsports nutritionsurveyvalid

Identifiers

PMID27649242
PMCPMC5037555
OpenAlexW2522772431

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.