Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30899232›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2019

Food-Pics_Extended-An Image Database for Experimental Research on Eating and Appetite: Additional Images, Normative Ratings and an Updated Review.

Jens Blechert, Anja Lender, Sarah Polk, Niko A Busch, Kathrin Ohla

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 86 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
86citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

26 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Jens BlechertDepartment of Psychology, University of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria.
Anja LenderDepartment of Psychology, University of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria.
Sarah PolkDepartment of Psychology and Education, Free University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Niko A BuschInstitute of Psychology, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.
Kathrin OhlaResearch Center Jülich, Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-3), Cognitive Neuroscience, Jülich, Germany.

Funding

Austrian Science Fund FWF W 1233
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Our current environment is characterized by the omnipresence of food cues. The taste and smell of real foods-but also graphical depictions of appetizing foods-can guide our eating behavior, for example, by eliciting food craving and anticipatory cephalic phase responses. To facilitate research into this so-called cue reactivity, several groups have compiled standardized food image sets. Yet, selecting the best subset of images for a specific research question can be difficult as images and image sets vary along several dimensions. In the present report, we review the strengths and weaknesses of popular food image sets to guide researchers during stimulus selection. Furthermore, we present a recent extension of our previously published database

Indexed as

cue reactivityeating behaviorexperimental researchfood stimuliimage database

Identifiers

PMID30899232
PMCPMC6416180

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.