ArticleBMC nutrition2023
Meal plans for meeting the reference values using food items available in shelters.
Article in BMC nutrition, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe have suggested "Revised Nutritional Reference Values for Feeding at Evacuation Shelters" (Revised RV) as a daily nutritional recommendation for meals served at evacuation shelters where poor diets had been reported. Since there are no meal examples to satisfy the Revised RV, our objectives were, for the future meal provision, to develop nutritionally adequate meal plans using the foods served at shelters in the past and to examine if the Revised RV could be met by changing combination of foods available.
methodsIn this case study using secondary data, we analyzed food weights of 86 meals served and recorded at 12 shelters after the heavy rains in July 2020. We obtained these data from Kumamoto Prefecture that was damaged and asked us dietary assessment for nutrition assistance. Foods were classified into 3 types according to the check mark in the record sheets: food aid (commercial packaged food), boxed meal, and hot meal service. We counted serving frequency of each food and analyzed nutritional differences by their combinations. Menus were devised by choosing foods that were served more frequently or were more nutritious among those served at shelters. The target values for one meal were set at 1/3 of the Revised RV for energy, protein, vitamins B
resultsNone of the meals served in the shelters satisfied the target. We created 2 menus using food aid only: (#1 curry doughnut, milk with long shelf-life, and orange jelly) and (#2 salmon rice ball, ham and cheese sandwich, and vegetable juice); 1 menu by combination of boxed meal and food aid: (#3 boxed meal and vegetable juice); and 2 menus by combination of hot meal service and food aid: (#4 chicken meatball soup, packaged tofu, soy sauce, preprocessed white rice, and bottled green tea) and (#5 bamboo shoots rice, chicken and vegetable miso soup, and bottled green tea). Planned menus generally contained more energy, protein, and vitamins and less salt than the meals served. Their vitamin C contents were especially higher.
conclusionNutritionally adequate meals could be planned by changing the combination of foods available in shelters.
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.