ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2017
A pilot investigation to optimise methods for a future satiety preload study.
Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effectiveness of a polyphenolic extract (Lippia citriodora and Hibiscus sabdariffa) on appetite regulation in overweight and obese grade I population: an 8-week randomized, double-blind, cross-over, placebo-controlled trial.European journal of nutrition · 2022Trial
- Impact of dietary supplementation with resistant dextrin (NUTRIOSEEuropean journal of nutrition · 2021Trial
- Codesigning a Neurocognitive Assessment Protocol for Hyperphagia: Perspectives From Stakeholders in Prader-Willi Syndrome.Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPreload studies are used to investigate the satiating effects of foods and food ingredients. However, the design of preload studies is complex, with many methodological considerations influencing appetite responses. The aim of this pilot investigation was to determine acceptability, and optimise methods, for a future satiety preload study. Specifically, we investigated the effects of altering (i) energy intake at a standardised breakfast (gender-specific or non-gender specific), and (ii) the duration between mid-morning preload and ad libitum lunch meal, on morning appetite scores and energy intake at lunch.
methodsParticipants attended a single study visit. Female participants consumed a 214-kcal breakfast (
resultsCorrelation between male and female appetite scores was higher with the provision of a gender-specific breakfast, compared to non-gender-specific breakfast (Pearson correlation of 0.747 and 0.479, respectively). No differences in subjective appetite or ad libitum energy intake were found between protocols 1 and 2. VAS mean ratings of liking, enjoyment, and palatability were all > 66 out of 100 mm for breakfast, preload, and lunch meals.
conclusionsThe findings of this pilot study confirm the acceptability of this methodology for future satiety preload studies. Appetite scores increased from preload to ad libitum lunch meal; however, no specific differences were found between protocols. The results highlight the importance of considering energy intake prior to preload provision, with a gender-specific breakfast improving the correlation between male and female appetite score responses to a morning preload.
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.