ArticleMaternal & child nutrition2023
Interpreting alignment to the EAT-Lancet diet using dietary intakes of lactating mothers in rural Western Kenya.
Article in Maternal & child nutrition, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- 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
- Maternal adherence to the EAT-Lancet diet recommendations among pregnant women in Ireland and associations with offspring birth outcomes and childhood adiposity.European journal of nutrition · 2025Article
- Interpreting alignment to the EAT-Lancet diet using dietary intakes of lactating mothers in rural Western Kenya.Maternal & child nutrition · 2023Article
- Global trends and research hotspots of EAT-Lancet diet: a bibliometric analysis.Frontiers in nutrition · 2023Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The EAT-Lancet reference diet intends to be good for planetary and human health. We compared single multiple pass method 24-h dietary intake of mothers (n = 242) from a cross-sectional study in Western Kenya to the recommended range of intake of 11 EAT-Lancet food groups (e.g., 0-100 g/day legumes; maximum score 11), defining alignment two ways: daily intake among food groups where a minimum intake of 0 g was either acceptable or unacceptable. Ordinal logistic regression models assessed associations between alignment and body mass index (BMI). Cost of mothers' diets and hypothetical diets within recommended ranges (lower bounds >0 g) were estimated using food price data from markets within the mothers' locality. Mean energy intake was 1827 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1731-1924) kcal/day. Relative to the EAT-Lancet diet, mothers' diets were on average higher for grains; within recommendations for tubers, fish, beef and dairy; closer to lower bounds for chicken, eggs, legumes and nuts; and lower for fruits and vegetables. Mean (95% CI) alignment scores were 8.2 (8.0-8.3) when 0 g intakes were acceptable and 1.7 (1.6-1.9) otherwise. No significant associations were found between alignment and BMI. Mothers' diets and hypothetical diets within recommended ranges averaged 184.6 KES (1.6 USD) and 357.5 KES (3.0 USD)/person/day, respectively. Lactating mothers' diets were not diverse and diverged from the reference diet when an intake of 0 g was considered unacceptable. Lower bound intakes of 0 g for micronutrient-dense food groups are inappropriate in food-insecure populations. It would likely cost more than mothers currently spend to tailor their diets to the EAT-Lancet reference diet.
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.