ReviewNutrients2022
Statistical Methods for the Analysis of Food Composition Databases: A Review.
Review in Nutrients, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development of Functional Synbiotic-Designed Sorbets as Carriers ofMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Nutritional Variation Among Foods Included in an Ecuadorian Food Composition Database Using Multivariate Analysis.Nutrients · 2026Article
- Development of a Choline Database for Thai Food and a Population-Wide Assessment of Choline Intake in Thailand.Nutrients · 2026Article
- Physicochemical Variability and Quality of Honey from the Zagreb Region: The Role of Botanical Origin and Spatial Structure.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Comparative analysis of energy recovery and digestate quality from anaerobic co-digestion of fruit and vegetable wastes under ambient and mesophilic conditions.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Associations between Multiple Food Consumption Frequencies and the Incidence of Cardiovascular Disease in High Cardiac Risk Subjects.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Article
- Perspective: A Comprehensive Evaluation of Data Quality in Nutrient Databases.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2023Review
- Determining classes of food items for health requirements and nutrition guidelines using Gaussian mixture models.Frontiers in nutrition · 2023Article
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
Evidence-based knowledge of the relationship between foods and nutrients is needed to inform dietary-based guidelines and policy. Proper and tailored statistical methods to analyse food composition databases (FCDBs) could assist in this regard. This review aims to collate the existing literature that used any statistical method to analyse FCDBs, to identify key trends and research gaps. The search strategy yielded 4238 references from electronic databases of which 24 fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Information on the objectives, statistical methods, and results was extracted. Statistical methods were mostly applied to group similar food items (37.5%). Other aims and objectives included determining associations between the nutrient content and known food characteristics (25.0%), determining nutrient co-occurrence (20.8%), evaluating nutrient changes over time (16.7%), and addressing the accuracy and completeness of databases (16.7%). Standard statistical tests (33.3%) were the most utilised followed by clustering (29.1%), other methods (16.7%), regression methods (12.5%), and dimension reduction techniques (8.3%). Nutrient data has unique characteristics such as correlated components, natural groupings, and a compositional nature. Statistical methods used for analysis need to account for this data structure. Our summary of the literature provides a reference for researchers looking to expand into this area.
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.