SynthesisAdvances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.)2023
The Relationship of Ready-to-Eat Cereal Intake and Body Weight in Adults: A Systematic Review of Observational Studies and Controlled Trials.
Synthesis 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 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Systematic Review of Evidence on the Role of Ready-to-Eat Cereals in Diet and Non-Communicable Disease Prevention.Nutrients · 2025Pooled it
- The nutritional and health benefits of ready-to-eat-cereal consumption: an updated technical review of global evidence.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Review
- The impacts of ready-to-eat-cereals and cereal fibers on gut health, body weight, and cardiometabolic health.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Review
- Added Sugar Sources and Their Impact on Diet Quality and Nutrient Intakes: An Analysis Across Added Sugar Intake Levels in United States Children and Adults.Current developments in nutrition · 2025Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Results from observational studies indicate that consumption of ready-to-eat cereal (RTEC) is associated with higher diet quality and lower incidence of overweight and obesity in adults compared with other breakfasts or skipping breakfast. However, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have had inconsistent results regarding effects of RTEC consumption on body weight and composition. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effect of RTEC intake on body weight outcomes in observational studies and RCTs in adults. A search of PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases yielded 28 relevant studies, including 14 observational studies and 14 RCTs. Results from observational studies demonstrate that frequent RTEC consumers (usually ≥4 servings/wk) have lower BMI, lower prevalence of overweight/obesity, less weight gain over time, and less anthropometric evidence of abdominal adiposity compared with nonconsumers, or less frequent consumers. RCT results suggest that RTEC may be used as a meal or snack replacement as part of a hypocaloric diet, but this approach is not superior to other options for those attempting to achieve an energy deficit. In addition, RTEC consumption was not associated with significantly less loss of body weight, or with weight gain, in any of the RCTs. RTEC intake is associated with favorable body weight outcomes in adults in observational studies. RTEC does not hinder weight loss when used as a meal or snack replacement within a hypocaloric diet. Additional long-term RCTs (≥6 mo) in both hypocaloric and ad libitum conditions are recommended to evaluate further the potential effects of RTEC consumption on body weight outcomes. PROSPERO (CRD42022311805).
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.