Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36997091›Full record

ArticleAdvances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.)2023

Perspective: Advancing Dietary Guidance for Cognitive Health-Focus On Solutions to Harmonize Test Selection, Implementation, and Evaluation.

Amy R Romijn, Marie E Latulippe, Linda Snetselaar, Peter Willatts, Lysanne Melanson, Richard Gershon, Christy Tangney, Hayley A Young

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. The effects ofFrontiers in nutrition · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
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

8 authors.

Amy R RomijnSwansea University, School of Psychology, Swansea, Wales, UK. Electronic address: a.r.romijn@swansea.ac.uk.
Marie E LatulippeInstitute for the Advancement of Food and Nutrition Sciences, Washington, DC, USA.
Linda SnetselaarEpidemiology Department, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA.
Peter WillattsSchool of Social Sciences, Psychology, University of Dundee, Scotland, UK.
Lysanne MelansonHealth Canada, Health Products and Food Branch, Natural and Non-Prescription Health Products Directorate, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Richard GershonDepartment of Medical Social Sciences, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA.
Christy TangneyDepartment of Clinical Nutrition, College of Health Sciences, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA.
Hayley A YoungSwansea University, School of Psychology, Swansea, Wales, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This perspective article is a product of a workshop of experts convened by the Institute for the Advancement of Food and Nutrition Sciences (IAFNS), a nonprofit organization that brings together scientists from government, academia, and industry to catalyze science relevant to food and nutrition for public benefit. An expert group was convened in March 2022 to discuss the current issues surrounding cognitive task selection in nutrition research, with a focus on solutions toward informing dietary guidance for cognitive health, to address a gap identified in the 2020 United States Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee report, specifically the "considerable variation in testing methods used, [and] inconsistent validity and reliability of cognitive testing methods." To address this issue, we first undertook an umbrella review of relevant reviews already undertaken; these indicate agreement on some of the issues that affect heterogeneity in task selection, and on many of the fundamental principles underlying the selection of cognitive outcome measures. However, resolving the points of disagreement is critical to ensuring a meaningful impact on the issue of heterogeneity in task selection; these issues hamper the evaluation of existing data for informing dietary guidance. This summary of the literature is therefore followed by the expert group's perspective in the form of a discussion of potential solutions to these challenges, with the aim of building on the work of previous reviews in the area and advancing dietary guidance for cognitive health. Registered on PROSPERO: CRD42022348106. Data described in the manuscript, code book, and analytic code will be made publicly and freely available without restriction at doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/XRZCK.

Indexed as

FoodHealth EducationAdvisory CommitteesCognitionHumansReproducibility of ResultsUnited Statescognitive test selectiondietary guidancemethodological heterogeneitynutritionumbrella review

Identifiers

PMID36997091
PMCPMC10201813

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.