Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28340101›Full record

SynthesisNutrition reviews2017

Dietary assessment in minority ethnic groups: a systematic review of instruments for portion-size estimation in the United Kingdom.

Eva Almiron-Roig, Amanda Aitken, Catherine Galloway, Basma Ellahi

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Nutrition reviews, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

Eva Almiron-RoigMRC Elsie Widdowson Laboratory, Cambridge, UK.
Amanda AitkenFaculty of Health and Social Care, University of Chester, Chester, UK.
Catherine GallowayMRC Elsie Widdowson Laboratory, Cambridge, UK.
Basma EllahiFaculty of Health and Social Care, University of Chester, Chester, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Context: Dietary assessment in minority ethnic groups is critical for surveillance programs and for implementing effective interventions. A major challenge is the accurate estimation of portion sizes for traditional foods and dishes. Objective: The aim of this systematic review was to assess records published up to 2014 describing a portion-size estimation element (PSEE) applicable to the dietary assessment of UK-residing ethnic minorities. Data sources, selection, and extraction: Electronic databases, internet sites, and theses repositories were searched, generating 5683 titles, from which 57 eligible full-text records were reviewed. Data analysis: Forty-two publications about minority ethnic groups (n = 20) or autochthonous populations (n = 22) were included. The most common PSEEs (47%) were combination tools (eg, food models and portion-size lists), followed by portion-size lists in questionnaires/guides (19%) and image-based and volumetric tools (17% each). Only 17% of PSEEs had been validated against weighed data. Conclusions: When developing ethnic-specific dietary assessment tools, it is important to consider customary portion sizes by sex and age, traditional household utensil usage, and population literacy levels. Combining multiple PSEEs may increase accuracy, but such methods require validation.

Indexed as

EthnicityNutrition AssessmentPortion SizeDatabases, FactualHumansObservational Studies as TopicUnited Kingdomdietary assessmentminority ethnic groupsportion size estimation aidsportion size tools

Identifiers

PMID28340101
PMCPMC5410991

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.