Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34668030›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of nutrition2022

Fortification of grain foods and NOVA: the potential for altered nutrient intakes while avoiding ultra-processed foods.

Madeline L Estell, Eden M Barrett, Katrina R Kissock, Sara J Grafenauer, Julie Miller Jones, Eleanor J Beck

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of nutrition, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Beyond Plants: The Ultra-Processing of Global Diets Is Harming the Health of People, Places, and Planet.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Madeline L EstellSchool of Medicine, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, 2522, Australia.
Eden M BarrettNational Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, 2601, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0190-6130
Katrina R KissockSchool of Medicine, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, 2522, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6665-2106
Sara J GrafenauerSchool of Medicine, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, 2522, Australia.
Julie Miller JonesFoods and Nutrition, St Catherine University, St. Paul, MN, 55105, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0848-2211
Eleanor J BeckSchool of Medicine, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, 2522, Australia. eleanor_beck@uow.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3448-6534
University of Wollongong · AUAustralian National University · AUSt. Catherine University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeNOVA is a food classification system describing a hierarchy from minimally processed to ultra-processed foods (UPF). Research has associated intake of UPF with chronic diseases. In Australia, the primary sources of grains, both refined and whole, are breads and breakfast cereals, which are typically fortified. Most are classified as UPF, yet are recommended core foods according to the Australian Dietary Guidelines (ADG). This research aimed to identify if avoidance of ultra-processed grain foods would alter nutrient intakes in an Australian population and whether sample diets using substitute (non-UPF) foods would be likely to meet nutrient requirements.

methodsQuantitative analysis of usual nutrient intake from the National Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey 2011-12 (n = 12,153) for all foods including and excluding UPF. Dietary modelling examined the nutritional adequacy of sample diets aligned with the ADG and another containing replacements for UPF. We particularly focused on grain foods and meeting whole-grain intake targets.

resultsThere was a significant decrease (all p < 0.05) in modelled intake of key nutrients when UPF were excluded, specifically, thiamin, folate and iodine, as substitutions are rarely fortified. Diets with no UPF, where substitutes are carefully chosen, have the potential to meet Nutrient Reference Values, but deviation from customary food choices may mean adoption of substitutes is unlikely.

conclusionsExclusion of UPF may result in lowered intakes of key nutrients of particular concern for at risk groups (including women of child-bearing age), negating gains made by public health policy of fortification. Substitutions may not be realistic in these at-risk populations.

Indexed as

Edible GrainFast FoodsAustraliaDietEatingEnergy IntakeFood HandlingHumansCerealsDietary modellingFortificationGrainsUltra-processed foods

Identifiers

PMID34668030
OpenAlexW3207682932

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.