Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30278979›Full record

ArticleAppetite2018

Studying human eating behaviour in the laboratory: Theoretical considerations and practical suggestions.

Maisy Best, Lawrence W Barsalou, Esther K Papies

Abstract readComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Appetite, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Maisy BestInstitute of Neuroscience and Psychology, University of Glasgow, UK. Electronic address: maisy.best@glasgow.ac.uk.
Lawrence W BarsalouInstitute of Neuroscience and Psychology, University of Glasgow, UK.
Esther K PapiesInstitute of Neuroscience and Psychology, University of Glasgow, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Robinson and colleagues (2018) make important first steps in highlighting the shortcomings of laboratory studies of human eating behaviour, and providing some general suggestions to increase methodological and reporting quality. In this commentary, we present additional important theoretical considerations and practical suggestions. First, we discuss the role of situational cues in eating behaviour and highlight the implications for designing ecologically valid laboratory experiments. Next, we discuss food intake in laboratory settings in the context of the distinction between implicit and explicit measures used widely in social psychology, and provide practical recommendations to keep intake a relatively implicit measure. Finally, we recognise that designing optimal experiments requires significant resources so we present a practical procedure to recruit the smallest informative sample via Bayesian sequential hypothesis testing.

Indexed as

EatingFeeding BehaviorBayes TheoremCuesHumansSuggestion

Identifiers

PMID30278979

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.