Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30065791›Full record

ReviewGenes & nutrition2018

Biomarkers of food intake for cocoa and liquorice (products): a systematic review.

Charlotte C J R Michielsen, Enrique Almanza-Aguilera, Elske M Brouwer-Brolsma, Mireia Urpi-Sarda, Lydia A Afman

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Genes & nutrition, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. FOBI: an ontology to represent food intake data and associate it with metabolomic data.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2020
    Article
  13. Article
  14. 2'-Hydroxychalcone Induced CytotoxicityFrontiers in pharmacology · 2019
    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

5 authors.

Charlotte C J R Michielsen1Division of Human Nutrition and Health, Wageningen University and Research Centre, Stippeneng 4, 6708 WE Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Enrique Almanza-Aguilera2Department of Nutrition, Food Sciences and Gastronomy, Biomarkers and Nutrimetabolomics Laboratory, XaRTA, INSA-UB, Faculty of Pharmacy and Food Sciences, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Elske M Brouwer-Brolsma1Division of Human Nutrition and Health, Wageningen University and Research Centre, Stippeneng 4, 6708 WE Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Mireia Urpi-Sarda2Department of Nutrition, Food Sciences and Gastronomy, Biomarkers and Nutrimetabolomics Laboratory, XaRTA, INSA-UB, Faculty of Pharmacy and Food Sciences, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Lydia A Afman1Division of Human Nutrition and Health, Wageningen University and Research Centre, Stippeneng 4, 6708 WE Wageningen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo unravel true links between diet and health, it is important that dietary exposure is accurately measured. Currently, mainly self-reporting methods (e.g. food frequency questionnaires and 24-h recalls) are used to assess food intake in epidemiological studies. However, these traditional instruments are subjective measures and contain well-known biases. Especially, estimating the intake of the group of confectionary products, such as products containing cocoa and liquorice, remains a challenge. The use biomarkers of food intake (BFIs) may provide a more objective measurement. However, an overview of current candidate biomarkers and their validity is missing for both cocoa- and liquorice-containing foods.

objectiveThe purpose of the current study was to (1) identify currently described candidate BFIs for cocoa (products) and liquorice, (2) to evaluate the validity of these identified candidate BFIs and (3) to address further validation and/or identification work to be done.

methodsThis systematic review was based on a comprehensive literature search of three databases (PubMed, Scopus and ISI web of Science), to identify candidate BFIs. Via a second search step in the Human Metabolome Database (HMDB), the Food Database (FooDB) and Phenol-Explorer, the specificity of the candidate BFIs was evaluated, followed by an evaluation of the validity of the specific candidate BFIs, via pre-defined criteria.

resultsIn total, 37 papers were included for cocoa and 8 papers for liquorice. For cocoa, 164 unique candidate BFIs were obtained, and for liquorice, four were identified in total. Despite the high number of identified BFIs for cocoa, none of the metabolites was specific. Therefore, the validity of these compounds was not further examined. For liquorice intake, 18-glycyrrhetinic acid (18-GA) was found to have the highest assumed validity.

conclusionsFor cocoa, specific BFIs were missing, mainly because the individual BFIs were also found in foods having a similar composition, such as tea (polyphenols) or coffee (caffeine). However, a combination of individual BFIs might lead to discriminating profiles between cocoa (products) and foods with a similar composition. Therefore, studies directly comparing the consumption of cocoa to these similar products are needed, enabling efforts to find a unique profile per product. For liquorice, we identified 18-GA as a promising BFI; however, important information on its validity is missing; thus, more research is necessary. Our findings indicate a need for more studies to determine acceptable BFIs for both cocoa and liquorice.

Indexed as

BiomarkersCacaoChocolateCocoaLicoriceLiquoriceMetabolitesMetabolomics

Identifiers

PMID30065791
PMCPMC6062926

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.