ArticleNutrition research and practice2023
Application of draft nutritional standards for school lunches in the Republic of Korea: a feasibility study from the supplier perspective.
Article in Nutrition research and practice, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Linking diet and obesity among young people living in Sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Pooled it
- Life-course personalized nutrition strategy for adolescents and young adults in Korea based on a behavioral science approach and community-based model: a narrative review.Korean journal of community nutrition · 2026Review
- The transition of nutritional status in infants, young children, and school-aged children in Korea and future-oriented nutritional strategies: a narrative review.Korean journal of community nutrition · 2026Review
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
BACKGROUND/
objectivesThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of application of the draft nutritional standards for school lunches in the Republic of Korea (South Korea) from the supplier perspective. SUBJECTS/
methodsIn November 2018, a pilot operation was conducted at 104 participating schools for 2 weeks each by applying the draft standards A and B. To evaluate the ease and appropriateness of application of the standards, we analyzed the nutritional values and food cost of the school lunches for 2 weeks before and for 4 weeks under the pilot operation. We conducted an online survey of school dietitians or nutrition teachers of the participating schools to evaluate the feasibility of application of the standards in school lunch sites.
resultsThe proportions of schools of which lunches met the reference values of the school's own nutritional standards were 19.2% for the standards A and 21.2% for the standards B. The food cost of school lunches applying the standards A (KRW 2,880) was significantly lower than that of school lunches applying the standards B (KRW 3,030) or the existing standards (KRW 2,980). As a result of the survey, the mean score for the ease of application was significantly higher for the standards B (2.75) than for the standards A (2.24). The proportions of school dietitians or nutrition teachers reporting no problem in meeting an existing food cost standard were 72.5% for the standards A and 61.8% for the standards B, respectively. The overall appropriateness of application was higher for the standards B, because almost two-thirds (58.8%) of the respondents answered that the standards B were more appropriate than the standards A.
conclusionThe standards B were more feasible to apply as nutritional standards for school lunches than the standards A from the supplier perspective.
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.