Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30869040›Full record

ArticleEpidemiology and infection2019

Are food exposures obtained through commercial market panels representative of the general population? Implications for outbreak investigations.

T Inns, D Curtis, P Crook, R Vivancos, D Gardiner, N McCarthy, P Mook

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Epidemiology and infection, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

7 authors.

T InnsField Service, Public Health England,London,UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1218-958X
D CurtisField Service, Public Health England,London,UK.
P CrookField Service, Public Health England,London,UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4965-2619
R VivancosField Service, Public Health England,London,UK.
D GardinerField Service, Public Health England,London,UK.
N McCarthyNIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Gastrointestinal Infections, University of Liverpool,Liverpool, UK.
P MookField Service, Public Health England,London,UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Current methods of control recruitment for case-control studies can be slow (a particular issue for outbreak investigations), resource-intensive and subject to a range of biases. Commercial market panels are a potential source of rapidly recruited controls. Our study evaluated food exposure data from these panel controls, compared with an established reference dataset. Market panel data were collected from two companies using retrospective internet-based surveys; these were compared with reference data from the National Diet and Nutrition Survey (NDNS). We used logistic regression to calculate adjusted odds ratios to compare exposure to each of the 71 food items between the market panel and NDNS participants. We compared 2103 panel controls with 2696 reference participants. Adjusted for socio-demographic factors, exposure to 90% of foods was statistically different between both panels and the reference data. However, these differences were likely to be of limited practical importance for 89% of Panel A foods and 79% of Panel B foods. Market panel food exposures were comparable with reference data for common food exposures but more likely to be different for uncommon exposures. This approach should be considered for outbreak investigation, in conjunction with other considerations such as population at risk, timeliness of response and study resources.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overDisease OutbreaksEnglandFemaleFoodborne DiseasesFood ContaminationHazard Analysis and Critical Control PointsHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesYoung AdultCase-control studiesepidemiological study designgastrointestinal infectionoutbreaks

Identifiers

PMID30869040
PMCPMC6420139

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.