Trial reportEuropean journal of clinical nutrition2023
Development and validation of an online tool to assess perceived portion size norms of discretionary foods.
Trial report in European journal of clinical nutrition, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Differences between the normal and perceived appropriate portion sizes of discretionary foods.European journal of clinical nutrition · 2025Article
- Portion Size Norms of Discretionary Foods and Eating Settings: A Repeated Cross-Sectional Study.Nutrients · 2024Article
- How big is too big? A qualitative study of discretionary food portion size norms among Australian consumers.Public health nutrition · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPerceived portion size norms (typical perception of how much of a given food individuals choose to eat at a single occasion) may have shifted towards larger sizes due to the ubiquity of large serving sizes. However, there is a lack of validated tools to assess such norms for energy-dense and nutrient-poor discretionary foods. This study aimed to develop and validate an online tool to examine the perceived portion size norms of discretionary foods.
methodsAn online image-series tool of 15 commonly consumed discretionary foods was developed, with eight successive portion size options included for each food. Using a randomised-crossover design, adult consumers (18-65 years) completed the validation study in a laboratory session (April-May 2022) by reporting their perceived portion size norms for each food twice, once based on food images on a computer and another time based on equivalent real food portion size options at food stations in the laboratory. Agreement between methods for each test food was examined using cross-classification and intra-class correlation (ICC).
resultsA sample of 114 subjects were recruited (mean age 24.8 years). Cross-classification indicated >90% of selections were matched in the same or adjacent portion size option. ICC was 0.85 across all foods, demonstrating a good level of agreement.
conclusionThis novel online image-series tool developed to examine perceived portion size norms of discretionary foods showed good agreement with equivalent real food portion size options and may be valuable to investigate perceived portion size norms of common discretionary foods in future studies.
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.