Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32183380›Full record

ArticleNutrients2020

Dietary Assessment Methods in Military and Veteran Populations: A Scoping Review.

Rebecca A Collins, Bradley Baker, Daisy H Coyle, Megan E Rollo, Tracy L Burrows

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Nutrients, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
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.

Rebecca A CollinsSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medicine, University of Newcastle, Callaghan 2308, Australia.
Bradley BakerFood and Nutrition, Land Division, Defence Science and Technology Group, Scottsdale 7260, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9064-9150
Daisy H CoyleSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medicine, University of Newcastle, Callaghan 2308, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8904-0671
Megan E RolloSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medicine, University of Newcastle, Callaghan 2308, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1303-2063
Tracy L BurrowsSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medicine, University of Newcastle, Callaghan 2308, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1431-7864

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Optimal dietary intake is important for the health and physical performance of military personnel. For military veterans, the complex nature of transition into civilian life and sub-optimal dietary intake is a leading contributor to the increased burden of disease. A scoping review was undertaken to determine what is known about the assessment and reporting of dietary intakes within both military and veteran populations. In addition, this review determines if studies reporting on the dietary intake of military personnel or veterans include comparisons with dietary guidelines. Six databases were searched to identify papers published from the database inception to April 2019. Observational and intervention studies were searched to identify if they assessed and reported whole dietary intake data, reported data exclusively for a military or veteran population, and included only healthy populations. A total of 89 studies were included. The majority of studies used one dietary assessment method (

Indexed as

Body Mass IndexEnergy IntakeMilitary PersonnelNutrition AssessmentNutrition PolicyVeteransFemaleHumansMaledefensedietdietary assessmentmilitaryscoping review

Identifiers

PMID32183380
PMCPMC7146105

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.