ArticlePublic health nutrition2021
Effect of breakfast cereal type on portion size and nutritional implications.
Article in Public health nutrition, 2021. 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.
- A Systematic Review of Evidence on the Role of Ready-to-Eat Cereals in Diet and Non-Communicable Disease Prevention.Nutrients · 2025Pooled it
- Two decades of monitoring acrylamide in breakfast cereals: Impact of market reformulation and compliance with EU regulation.Food chemistry: X · 2025Article
- Associations of breakfast cereal consumption with all-cause and cause-specific mortality: a large-scale prospective analysis.Nutrition journal · 2025Article
- Epidemiology of obesity and influential factors in China: a multicenter cross-sectional study of children and adolescents.BMC pediatrics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe present study aimed to assess the effect of different types of breakfast cereal (BC) on portion size and the nutritional implications of potential under or overserving.
designA cross-sectional analysis was performed using one BC from the seven established BC manufacturing methods (flaking (F), gun puffed (GP), oven puffed (OP), extruded gun puffed (EGP), shredded wholegrain (SW), biscuit formed (BF) and granola). Participants were asked to pour cereal as if they were serving themselves (freepour). Difference between the freepour and recommended serving size (RSS) was calculated (DFR). The Friedman test followed by Dunn's multiple comparison test was used to test for a significant differences between cereal categories.
settingCity of Chester, North West of the UK.
participantsAdults (n 169; n 110 female, 32 (sd 18) years).
resultsFreepour values were greater than RSS for all categories of BC. Median values for denser cereals such as SW, granola and oats were significantly (P < 0·001) greater than all other categories with granola having the highest median freepour value of 95 g. Median (and range of) DFR weight values for granola were significantly higher than other BC (50·0 g (-24·0 to 267·0 g), P < 0·001). BC with the lowest median DFR were F1 (7·0 g (-20 to 63·0 g)), GP (6·0 g (-26·0 to 69·0 g)), EGP (6·0 g (-26·0 to 56·0 g)), OP (5·0 g (-27·0 to 53·0 g)) and BF (0·0 g (-28·2 to 56·4 g)).
conclusionsThe degree of overserving may be related to the type of BC with denser cereals more readily overserved. Encouraging manufacturers to reformulate cereals and improving their nutritional properties may have benefit in reducing excess energy intake.
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.