ArticlePloS one2019
Evaluation of the eNutri automated personalised nutrition advice by users and nutrition professionals in the UK.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of Web-Based Personalized Nutrition Advice for Adults Using the eNutri Web App: Evidence From the EatWellUK Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Trial
- Impact on Dietary Intake of Two Levels of Technology-Assisted Personalized Nutrition: A Randomized Trial.Nutrients · 2020Trial
- Opportunities to design better computer vison-assisted food diaries to support individuals and experts in dietary assessment: An observation and interview study with nutrition experts.PLOS digital health · 2024Article
- Low Emulsifier Diet in Healthy Female Adults: A Feasibility Study of Nutrition Education and Counseling Intervention.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Fast-Food Consumption, Dietary Quality, and Dietary Intake of Adolescents in Saudi Arabia.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- The Assessment of a Personalized Nutrition Tool (eNutri) in Germany: Pilot Study on Usability Metrics and Users' Experiences.JMIR formative research · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nutrition apps have great potential to support people to improve their diets, but few apps give automated validated personalised nutrition advice. A web app capable of delivering automated personalised food-based nutrition advice (eNutri) was developed. The aims of this study were to i) evaluate and optimise the personalised nutrition report provided by the app and ii) compare the personalised food-based advice with nutrition professionals' standards to aid validation. A study with nutrition professionals (NP) compared the advice provided by the app against professional Registered Dietitians (RD) (n = 16) and Registered Nutritionists (RN) (n = 16) standards. Each NP received two pre-defined scenarios, comprising an individual's characteristics and dietary intake based on an analysis of a food frequency questionnaire, along with the nutrition food-based advice that was automatically generated by the app for that individual. NPs were asked to use their professional judgment to consider the scenario, provide their three most relevant recommendations for that individual, then consider the app's advice and rate their level of agreement via 5-star scales (with 5 as complete agreement). NPs were also asked to comment on the eNutri recommendations, scores generated and overall impression. The mean scores for the appropriateness, relevance and suitability of the eNutri diet messages were 3.5, 3.3 and 3.3 respectively.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.