Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33515033›Full record

SynthesisThe American journal of clinical nutrition2021

Effect of food variety on intake of a meal: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Rochelle Embling, Aimee E Pink, Jennifer Gatzemeier, Menna Price, Michelle D Lee, Laura L Wilkinson

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The American journal of clinical nutrition, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. The Metabolic Syndrome, a Human Disease.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Review
  20. Article
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

6 authors.

Rochelle EmblingDepartment of Psychology, College of Human and Health Sciences, Swansea University, Swansea, UK.
Aimee E PinkDepartment of Psychology, College of Human and Health Sciences, Swansea University, Swansea, UK.
Jennifer GatzemeierDepartment of Psychology, College of Human and Health Sciences, Swansea University, Swansea, UK.
Menna PriceDepartment of Psychology, College of Human and Health Sciences, Swansea University, Swansea, UK.
Michelle D LeeDepartment of Psychology, College of Human and Health Sciences, Swansea University, Swansea, UK.
Laura L WilkinsonDepartment of Psychology, College of Human and Health Sciences, Swansea University, Swansea, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany studies have shown that food variety-the presence of multiple foods and/or sensory characteristics within and across meals-increases intake. However, studies report mixed findings, and effect size remains unclear.

objectivesA systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to 1) synthesize data across experimental studies that examined effects of variety on total meal intake, relative to a control condition with comparatively less variety; 2) quantify support for this effect; and 3) assist in the identification of important moderating factors (registration: CRD42019153585).

methodsIn November 2019, we searched the following databases for relevant experimental studies, published in English from 1980, with human participants: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, PsycINFO, and OpenGrey. This search was updated in September 2020. Means, standard deviations, and sample sizes were extracted from included articles, and Hedges' g was used to calculate effect sizes. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool.

resultsOf 7259 references identified in an initial search, 34 articles consisting of 37 studies contained sufficient information for review, and data from 30 studies (39 comparisons) were included in the meta-analysis. Results from a random-effects model showed a significant small to medium effect of variety on intake (in weight and energy), with greater variety being associated with increased consumption (Hedges' g = 0.405; 95% CI: 0.259, 0.552). However, heterogeneity was considerable across studies (I2 = 84%), and this was unexplained by subgroup analyses based on form of variety, test foods, sensory characteristics, age, sex, and body weight.

conclusionsOur findings support the conclusion that variety is a robust driver of food intake. However, risk of bias was high across studies, and this review highlights methodologic limitations of studies. It is recommended that further attention is given to the development of preregistered, well-powered randomized controlled studies in eating behavior research.

Indexed as

EatingFeeding BehaviorMealsFoodHumansdietary diversityfood varietyintakemeta-analysissystematic review

Identifiers

PMID33515033
PMCPMC7948867

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.