Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32847945›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2020

Health impacts and environmental footprints of diets that meet the Eatwell Guide recommendations: analyses of multiple UK studies.

Pauline Scheelbeek, Rosemary Green, Keren Papier, Anika Knuppel, Carmelia Alae-Carew, Angela Balkwill, Timothy J Key, Valerie Beral, Alan D Dangour

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 71 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
71citing 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.

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

71 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. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Plant-based analogues to meat and dairy for sustainable food systems.The Proceedings of the Nutrition Society · 2026
    Review

11 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

9 authors.

Pauline ScheelbeekCentre on Climate Change & Planetary Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom Pauline.Scheelbeek@lshtm.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-6209-2284
Rosemary GreenCentre on Climate Change & Planetary Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Keren PapierNuffield Department of Population Health, Oxford University, Oxford, UK.
Anika KnuppelNuffield Department of Population Health, Oxford University, Oxford, UK.
Carmelia Alae-CarewDepartment of Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Angela BalkwillNuffield Department of Population Health, Oxford University, Oxford, UK.
Timothy J KeyNuffield Department of Population Health, Oxford University, Oxford, UK.
Valerie BeralNuffield Department of Population Health, Oxford University, Oxford, UK.
Alan D DangourCentre on Climate Change & Planetary Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 16491Cancer Research UK C570/A11692Cancer Research UK C8211/A19170Medical Research Council MR/K02700X/1Medical Research Council MR/M012190/1Wellcome Trust 205200/Z/16/ZWellcome Trust 205212/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess the health impacts and environmental consequences of adherence to national dietary recommendations (the Eatwell Guide (EWG)) in the UK. DESIGN AND

settingA secondary analysis of multiple observational studies in the UK.

participantsAdults from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer - Oxford(EPIC-Oxford), UK Biobank and Million Women Study, and adults and children aged 5 and over from the National Diet and Nutrition Survey (NDNS).Primary and secondary outcome measures risk of total mortality from Cox proportional hazards regression models, total greenhouse gas emissions (GHGe) and blue water footprint (WF) associated with 'very low' (0-2 recommendations), 'low' (3-4 recommendations) or 'intermediate-to-high' (5-9 recommendations) adherence to EWG recommendations.

resultsLess than 0.1% of the NDNS sample adhere to all nine EWG recommendations and 30.6% adhere to at least five recommendations. Compared with 'very low' adherence to EWG recommendations, 'intermediate-to-high adherence' was associated with a reduced risk of mortality (risk ratio (RR): 0.93; 99% CI: 0.90 to 0.97) and -1.6 kg CO

conclusionsThe health and environmental benefits of greater adherence to EWG recommendations support increased government efforts to encourage improved diets in the UK that are essential for the health of people and the planet in the Anthropocene.

Indexed as

DietGreenhouse GasesAdultChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansNutrition SurveysProspective StudiesUnited KingdomGreenhouse Gasesenvironmentepidemiologynutrition & dieteticsplanetary healthpreventive medicinepublic healthsustainability

Identifiers

PMID32847945
PMCPMC7451532

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.