ArticleFood & nutrition research2017
Methodological considerations in a pilot study on the effects of a berry enriched smoothie on children's performance in school.
Article in Food & nutrition research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Berries contain bioactive compounds that may affect children's cognitive function positively, while hunger and thirst during lessons before lunch affect academic performance negatively. This pilot study addresses methodological challenges in studying if a berry smoothie, offered to schoolchildren as a mid-morning beverage, affects academic performance. The objective was to investigate if a cross-over design can be used to study these effects in a school setting. Therefore, in order to investigate assay sensitivity, 236 Swedish children aged 10-12 years were administered either a berry smoothie (active) or a fruit-based control beverage after their mid-morning break. Both beverages provided 5% of child daily energy intake. In total, 91% of participants completed the study. Academic performance was assessed using the d2 test of attention. Statistical analyses were performed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test in StatXact v 10.3. The results showed that the children consumed less of the active berry smoothie than the control (154 g vs. 246 g). Both beverages increased attention span and concentration significantly (p = 0.000). However, as there was no significant difference (p = 0.938) in the magnitude of this effect between the active and control beverages, the assay sensitivity of the study design was not proven. The effect of the beverages on academic performance was attributed the supplementation of water and energy. Despite careful design, the active smoothie was less accepted than the control. This could be explained by un-familiar sensory characteristics and peer influence, stressing the importance of sensory similarity and challenges to perform a study in school settings. The employed cross-over design did not reveal any effects of bioactive compound consumption on academic performance. In future studies, the experimental set up should be modified or replaced by e.g. the parallel study design, in order to provide conclusive results.
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.