Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29601488›Full record

Trial reportNutrients2018

A Comparison of the Satiety Effects of a Fruit Smoothie, Its Fresh Fruit Equivalent and Other Drinks.

Peter J Rogers, Roya Shahrokni

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Nutrients, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Peter J RogersNutrition and Behaviour Unit, School of Experimental Psychology, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1TU, UK. peter.rogers@bristol.ac.uk.
Roya ShahrokniNutrition and Behaviour Unit, School of Experimental Psychology, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1TU, UK. roya.shahrokni@bristol.ac.uk.
University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Bristol · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Energy-containing liquids are claimed to have relatively low satiating power, although energy in liquids is not without effect on appetite. Using the preload test-meal method, effects on fullness and energy intake compensation were compared across four drinks (water, blackcurrant squash, milk and fruit smoothie) and the fresh fruit equivalent of the smoothie. Preload volumes were similar, and the energy value of each preload was 569 kJ, except for water (0 kJ). Healthy, adult participants rated the preloads for liking, enjoyment, satisfaction, familiarity and how 'food-like' they seemed. The preload to test-meal interval was 2 min (

Indexed as

AppetiteDrinking WaterEnergy IntakeFruitMealsMilkSatiety ResponseAdultAnimalsBeveragesEatingEnergy MetabolismFemaleFoodHumansMagnoliopsidaDrinking Watereating rateeating satisfactionenergy-containing drinksenergy intake compensationfruit smoothiefullnessliking

Identifiers

PMID29601488
PMCPMC5946216
OpenAlexW2794868470

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.