ArticlePLOS global public health2023
Assessment of Mongolian dietary intake for planetary and human health.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Health and Environmental Impacts, Safety, and Affordability of the EAT-Lancet Planetary Health Diet: A Multidisciplinary Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2026Pooled it
- Adherence to the eat-lancet planetary health diet and sustainability impacts of the Swiss diet.European journal of nutrition · 2026Article
- Effects of Animal-Based and Plant-Based Nitrates and Nitrites on Human Health: Beyond Nitric Oxide Production.Biomolecules · 2025Review
- Education-related inequality in overweight and obesity among Mongolian adults.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
- Article
- Gut microbiome signatures associated with type 2 diabetes in obesity in Mongolia.Frontiers in microbiology · 2024Article
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealthy diets that consider environmental pressures are required to meet sustainable development goals in Mongolia. This study aimed to clarify the extent of planetary and human health on Mongolian dietary intake.
methodsThe intake of eight food groups (g/day) was investigated using the national database of the Household socio-economic survey (HSES) 2019 in Mongolia. The boundary intake of the Planetary health diet (PHD) proposed by the EAT-Lancet Commission was considered 100% adequate. The adequacy (%) of food groups in the HSES were calculated in two areas (urban and rural), during the two seasons (cold and warm), and the total by each boundary of the PHD. The differences between the recommended dietary intake (RDI) in Mongolia and the PHD were also investigated in the same manner.
resultsThe adequacy of red meat (i.e., beef, mutton, and horsemeat) in whole areas of Mongolia indicated more than 17 times higher intake (1,738%) than the PHD. The adequacy of vegetables (20%) and fruits (8%) in Mongolia indicated an intake shortage compared to the PHD. These discrepancies in dietary adequacy were greater in rural areas and during the cold seasons than in urban areas and during the warm seasons, respectively. The animal-based protein sources, especially red meat (1,091%), in the RDI of Mongolia were higher than those in the PHD.
conclusionThis study found a highly excessive intake of red meat and a low intake of vegetables and fruits compared with the PHD among Mongolian people, especially in rural areas and during the cold seasons. The limited diversity of food in severe geographic conditions, poor accessibility of food retailers, and insufficient nutrition education may have led to these results. Therefore, improvements in the food environment and nutritional education are required.
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.