ArticlePublic health nutrition2020
The nutritional quality of supermarket own brand chilled convenience foods: an Australian cross-sectional study reveals limitations of the Health Star Rating.
Article in Public health nutrition, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Article
- Nutritional Composition and Purchasing Patterns of Supermarket Prepared Foods Over Time.American journal of preventive medicine · 2023Article
- Growth of Ready Meals in Australian Supermarkets: Nutrient Composition, Price and Serving Size.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the nutritional quality of Australian supermarket own brand chilled convenience foods (SOBCCF), for example, ready meals, pizza, pies and desserts.
designCross-sectional.
settingTwo large supermarkets (Coles and Woolworths) in Perth, Western Australia were audited in February 2017.
participantsData were extracted from photographic images of 291 SOBCCF, including front-of-pack information (i.e. product name, description and nutrition labels including Health Star Rating (HSR)) and back-of-pack information (i.e. nutrition information panel and ingredients list). SOBCCF were classified as healthy or unhealthy consistent with principles of the Australian Guide to Healthy Eating (AGTHE), NOVA classification of level of food processing and HSR score.
resultsFifty-four percentage of SOBCCF were classified as unhealthy according to AGTHE principles, 94 % were ultra-processed foods using NOVA and 81 % scored a HSR of ≥2·5, implying that they were a healthy choice. Some convenience food groups comprised more healthy choices overall including prepared vegetables, salad kits and bowls, soups and vegetarian food. A significantly larger proportion of SOBCCF from Coles were classified as unhealthy compared with Woolworths (70 v. 44 %, P < 0·05) using the AGTHE.
conclusionsThe findings suggest there is potential for Australian supermarkets to improve the nutritional quality of their SOBCCF and highlights the differences between supermarkets in applying their corporate social responsibility policies. Policies to assist consumers to select healthier foods should address difficulties in identifying healthy convenience foods. The findings reveal misclassification of unhealthy SOBCCF as healthy by the HSR suggesting that its algorithm should be reformed to align with recommendations of the AGTHE.
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.