ArticlePloS one2023
Comparing the nutritional composition of foods and beverages in the Canadian Nutrient File to a large representative database of Canadian prepackaged foods and beverages.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Changes in dietary sodium knowledge, attitudes and behaviors among Canadian adults in 2011 and 2024: a repeated cross-sectional study.The American journal of clinical nutrition · 2026Article
- Reliability and Validity of Nutrient Assessment Applications for Canadian Endurance Athletes: MyFitnessPal and Cronometer.Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association · 2025Observational
- Canadian Free Sugar Intake and Modelling of a Reformulation Scenario.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Article
- The estimated dietary and health impact of implementing the recently approved 'high in' front-of-package nutrition symbol in Canada: a food substitution scenario modeling study.Frontiers in nutrition · 2023Article
- Article
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
Abstract
backgroundNutrient information used to code dietary intakes in the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) may not be reflective of the current Canadian food supply and could result in inaccurate evaluations of nutrient exposures.
objectiveTo compare the nutritional compositions of foods in the CCHS 2015 Food and Ingredient Details (FID) file (n = 2,785) to a large representative Canadian database of branded food and beverage products (Food Label Information Program, FLIP) collected in 2017 (n = 20,625).
methodFood products in the FLIP database were matched to equivalent generic foods from the FID file to create new aggregate food profiles based on FLIP nutrient data. Mann Whitney U tests were used to compare nutrient compositions between the FID and FLIP food profiles.
resultsIn most food categories and nutrients there were no statistically significant differences between the FLIP and FID food profiles. Nutrients with the largest differences included: saturated fats (n = 9 of 21 categories), fiber (n = 7), cholesterol (n = 6), and total fats (n = 4). The meats and alternatives category had the most nutrients with significant differences.
conclusionThese results can be used to prioritize future updates and collections of food composition databases, while also providing insights for interpreting CCHS 2015 nutrient intakes.
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.