Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32471408›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2020

A comparison of the Indian diet with the EAT-Lancet reference diet.

Manika Sharma, Avinash Kishore, Devesh Roy, Kuhu Joshi

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07737119 (Impact of Optimised Protein Intake on Household Work Limitations and Disability in Rheumatoid Arthritis), which is not on this map. Cited by 96 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
96citing papers in PubMed, 4 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.

NCT07737119 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Impact of Optimised Protein Intake on Household Work Limitations and Disability in Rheumatoid Arthritis

TypeinterventionalSponsorSatguru Partap Singh HospitalsRan2024 to 2025Enrolled120ConditionsRheumatoid Arthritis (RA)ArmsProtein Optimisation through Dietary Counselling and Supplementation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

96 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

36 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

4 authors.

Manika SharmaInternational Food Policy Research Institute, NASC Complex, CG Block, Dev Prakash Shastri Marg, Pusa, New Delhi, 110012, India. manika.sharma@cgiar.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2841-8113
Avinash KishoreInternational Food Policy Research Institute, NASC Complex, CG Block, Dev Prakash Shastri Marg, Pusa, New Delhi, 110012, India.
Devesh RoyInternational Food Policy Research Institute, NASC Complex, CG Block, Dev Prakash Shastri Marg, Pusa, New Delhi, 110012, India.
Kuhu JoshiInternational Food Policy Research Institute, NASC Complex, CG Block, Dev Prakash Shastri Marg, Pusa, New Delhi, 110012, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe 2019 EAT-Lancet Commission report recommends healthy diets that can feed 10 billion people by 2050 from environmentally sustainable food systems. This study compares food consumption patterns in India, from different income groups, regions and sectors (rural/urban), with the EAT-Lancet reference diet and highlights the deviations.

methodsThe analysis was done using data from the Consumption Expenditure Survey (CES) of a nationally representative sample of 0.102 million households from 7469 villages and 5268 urban blocks of India conducted by the National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO) in 2011-12. This is the most recent nationally representative data on household consumption in India. Calorie consumption (kcal/capita/day) of each food group was calculated using the quantity of consumption from the data and nutritional values of food items provided by NSSO. Diets for rural and urban, poor and rich households across different regions were compared with EAT-Lancet reference diet.

resultsThe average daily calorie consumption in India is below the recommended 2503 kcal/capita/day across all groups compared, except for the richest 5% of the population. Calorie share of whole grains is significantly higher than the EAT-Lancet recommendations while those of fruits, vegetables, legumes, meat, fish and eggs are significantly lower. The share of calories from protein sources is only 6-8% in India compared to 29% in the reference diet. The imbalance is highest for the households in the lowest decile of consumption expenditure, but even the richest households in India do not consume adequate amounts of fruits, vegetables and non-cereal proteins in their diets. An average Indian household consumes more calories from processed foods than fruits.

conclusionsIndian diets, across states and income groups, are unhealthy. Indians also consume excess amounts of cereals and not enough proteins, fruits, and vegetables. Importantly, unlike many countries, excess consumption of animal protein is not a problem in India. Indian policymakers need to accelerate food-system-wide efforts to make healthier and sustainable diets more affordable, accessible and acceptable.

Indexed as

Energy IntakeFeeding BehaviorNutritive ValueAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsDiet, HealthyFemaleHumansIndiaMaleMiddle AgedRural PopulationSex FactorsSocioeconomic FactorsCaloriesConsumptionDietEAT-LancetFood systemIndiaNSSProcessed foodProteinReference diet

Identifiers

PMID32471408
PMCPMC7260780

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.