ArticlePublic health nutrition2018
Validation of a photographic seafood portion guide to assess fish and shrimp intakes.
Article in Public health nutrition, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Measuring dietary intake in low-and middle-income countries: a systematic review of the methods and tools for estimating fish and seafood intake.Nutrition reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Comprehensive global review and methodological framework for developing food atlases.Frontiers in nutrition · 2024Review
- Test-Retest Reliability of a Food Frequency Questionnaire to Assess Seafood Intake Dynamics for High-End Consumers in Coastal Gulf of Mexico Communities.Journal of environmental and public health · 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
Abstract
objectiveTo validate a novel photographic portion guide as a tool to estimate consumption of fish and shrimp. Application of such a validated tool can facilitate accurate individual and community seafood intake assessments and provide meaningful data relative to health benefits and hazard assessment, particularly in response to environmental contamination and disasters.
designA photographic fish and shrimp portion guide presenting a stepped range of cooked portion sizes was used by participants to estimate their typical portion sizes. Participants selected their typical portion size from the photographic guide and also from a selection of freshly cooked reference meals. Photographic portions selections were compared with plated reference portions for each participant.
settingAcademic sensory testing laboratory in the USA. SUBJECTS: Separate groups of adults (25-64 years) contributed to fish (n 54) and shrimp (n 53) portion size comparison studies.
resultsIn the fish study, there was no difference between photographic portion selections (6·59 (sd 2·65) oz (186·8 (sd 75·1) g)) and reference plate selections (7·04 (sd 2·63) oz (199·6 (sd 74·6) g); P=0·384). Similarly in the shrimp study, there was no difference between photographic portion selections (6·88 (sd 3·40) oz (195·0 (sd 96·4) g)) and reference plate selections (6·06 (sd 2·65) oz (171·8 (sd 75·1) g); P=0·159). Photographic portions predicted plated reference portions for both fish and shrimp based on linear regression (P<0·001). Bland-Altman plot analyses showed good agreement between the two methods, <1 oz (<28·3 g) bias, in both fish and shrimp studies.
conclusionsThis validated photographic seafood portion guide provides a utilitarian tool for accurately assessing fish and shrimp intake in a community setting.
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.