SynthesisAppetite2022
The influence of experimental confederate peers on children's food intake: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Appetite, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Confederates influence eating behaviour. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have been conducted on this topic, however, the majority have examined adults, or a combination of adults and children, therefore, an up-to-date meta-analysis is needed to examine the impact of confederate peers on children's food intake. We systematically reviewed and meta-analysed the influence of confederate peers on children's food intake in research using present and remote-confederates. Six publications summarising findings from seven studies were included in this review. One publication was excluded from the meta-analysis because it was not possible to extract the required data. The meta-analysis showed that children were influenced by confederate peers; eating more when exposed to a high-intake compared to a no or low-intake confederate. Larger effects were observed when children were exposed to a remote-than a present-confederate, and for studies using healthy snacks compared to high fat high sugar (HFHS) snacks. No difference in effect size was observed when children were exposed to a high-vs. low-intake confederate compared to a high-vs. no-intake confederate. In the narrative synthesis, confederate intake influenced children's eating behaviour 24-h later, and possible moderators and a potential mechanism underlying the influence of confederates were identified. Caution is needed when interpreting the results, as the sub-groups were not compared statistically due to high heterogeneity, and a small number of studies were included in this review. Furthermore, all studies using the present-confederate design examined HFHS snack intake, therefore, it is unclear whether observed differences in effect sizes between present- and remote-confederates may be due to confederate or food type. Research is needed to further examine the influence of confederate peers on children's food intake and to examine mechanisms and moderators.
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.