ArticlePeerJ2020
Assessment of nationally representative dietary studies in the Gulf Cooperation Council: a scoping review.
Article in PeerJ, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patterns and determinants of nutraceutical use and trust mechanisms among adults in Saudi Arabia: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Research Productivity on Obesity in the Arab World:Saudi medical journal · 2026Article
- Article
- A Scoping Review of Non-Communicable Diseases and Maternal and Child Health Needs of Venezuelan Migrants in South America.Journal of global health reports · 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
backgroundObesity is at a record high in Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries and is expected to continue increasing. Diet is a major contributor to this disease, but there is inadequate nationally representative dietary research from these countries. The aim was to quantify the number dietary studies using food frequency questionnaires (FFQs) that have been conducted in individual GCC countries and to assess the quality of eligible studies. METHODOLOGY: Four databases (PubMed, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and DOAJ) were searched for keywords; records were screened for eligible studies and data were abstracted on study characteristics (publication year, geographical locations, sample size, units of measurement, number of foods examined, number of Arab foods and key findings). Quality was assessed using an adapted Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for cross-sectional studies.
resultsOnly seven studies were eligible from four of six GCC countries (Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait and Qatar). All eligible studies used FFQs, but only 29% used a validated questionnaire, one being in Arabic, and none of the studies used any additional tools to measure diet. Fifty-seven percent of studies made an effort to include local foods. The majority of studies (71%) either measured frequency or quantity of food consumed, but only 29% attempted to account for both frequency and quantity.
conclusionsThe quality of studies varied and major weaknesses of FFQ validity and adaptability have been highlighted. More dietary investigations are needed using validated FFQs that have been adapted to the local GCC diets. Using reference tools will allow for better dietary estimations.
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.