Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36986099›Full record

ReviewNutrients2023

Soft Drink Intake in Europe-A Review of Data from Nationally Representative Food Consumption Surveys.

Janette Walton, Anna Wittekind

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nutrients, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Janette WaltonDepartment of Biological Sciences, Munster Technological University, T12 P928 Cork, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0003-4758-5328
Anna WittekindIndependent Nutrition Consultant, Great Missenden HP16 0BS, UK.
Munster Technological University · IE

Funding

UNESDA n/a
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Public health interest in reducing the intake of sugar-sweetened soft drinks has resulted in various guidelines and initiatives related to their consumption, together with an increase in availability and sales of low and no-sugars versions. The aim of this review was to gain insight regarding individual-level amounts and types of soft drinks consumed across the lifecycle as reported in nationally representative surveys in Europe. The review highlighted significant gaps and challenges regarding the availability of recent country-specific soft drink consumption data including heterogeneity in categorisations used in reporting soft drinks. Nonetheless, crude estimates of mean intake (across countries) indicated that total soft drinks and soft drinks with sugars was highest in adolescents and lowest in infants/toddlers and older adults. For infants/toddlers, crude mean intakes of soft drinks with reduced/no sugars were higher than soft drinks with sugars. The review also found that consumption of total soft drinks is decreasing with a shift to consumption of soft drinks with reduced/no sugars in replacement of sugars-containing soft drinks. This review provides valuable insight into what data are currently available on soft drink consumption in Europe with heterogeneity in categorisations, terminology, and definitions of soft drinks observed.

Indexed as

BeveragesSugar-Sweetened BeveragesAdolescentAgedCarbonated BeveragesEuropeHumansSurveys and Questionnairesadded sugarsdiet drinksenergy drinksfood consumptionfree sugarsnational dietary surveyssoft drinksSSBssugar-sweetened beverages

Identifiers

PMID36986099
PMCPMC10051353
OpenAlexW4324090793

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.