Trial reportPublic health nutrition2017
How expensive is a cardioprotective diet? Analysis from the CRESSIDA study.
Trial report 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 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Mediterranean-style diet for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Does an antihypertensive diet cost more? Analysis from the Chinese Heart-Healthy diet trial.Public health nutrition · 2024Trial
- The Effects of the Re-imposition of US Sanctions on Food Security in Iran.International journal of health policy and management · 2022Article
- Small increments in diet cost can improve compliance with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.Social science & medicine (1982) · 2020Article
- Factors affecting safe and healthy diet in older adults in Italy: results of a preliminary study performed in a community-dwelling sample.Public health nutrition · 2020Article
- Strategies for Healthy Eating Promotion and Behavioral Change Perceived as Effective by Nutrition Professionals: A Mixed-Methods Study.Frontiers in nutrition · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine whether a cardioprotective dietary intervention based on UK dietary guidelines was more expensive than a conventional UK diet.
designCost analysis of food records collected at baseline and after a 12-week dietary intervention of a cardioprotective diet v. conventional UK diet.
settingA randomized controlled dietary intervention study (CRESSIDA; ISRCTN 92382106) investigating the impact of following a diet consistent with UK dietary guidelines on CVD risk. SUBJECTS: Participants were healthy UK residents aged 40-70 years. A sub-sample of participants was randomly selected from those who completed the cardioprotective dietary intervention (n 20) or the conventional UK dietary intervention (n 20).
resultsBaseline diet costs did not differ between groups; mean daily food cost for all participants was £6·12 (sd £1·83). The intervention diets were not more expensive: at end point the mean daily cost of the cardioprotective diet was £6·43 (sd £2·05) v. the control diet which was £6·53 (sd £1·53; P=0·86).
conclusionsThere was no evidence that consumption of a cardioprotective diet was more expensive than a conventional dietary pattern. Despite the perception that healthier foods are less affordable, these results suggest that cost may not be a barrier when modifying habitual intake and under tightly controlled trial conditions. The identification of specific food groups that may be a cost concern for individuals may be useful for tailoring interventions for CVD prevention for individuals and populations.
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.