ReviewFrontiers in nutrition2023
Can common dietary assessment methods be better designed to capture the nutritional contribution of neglected, forest, and wild foods to diets?
Review in Frontiers in nutrition, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prioritizing neglected food species in nutritional studies using expert-knowledge and explainable AI.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Tastes of sustainability: a regional journey through Chilean traditional diets.Cadernos de saude publica · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Food systems are the primary cause of biodiversity loss globally. Biodiversity and specifically, the role that wild, forest and neglected and underutilised species (NUS) foods might play in diet quality is gaining increased attention. The narrow focus on producing affordable staples for dietary energy has contributed to largely homogenous and unhealthy diets. To date, evidence to quantify the nutritional contribution of these biodiverse foods is limited. A scoping review was conducted to document the methods used to quantify the contribution of wild, forest and NUS foods. We found 37 relevant articles from 22 different countries, mainly from Africa (45%), the Americas (19%), and Asia (10%). There were 114 different classifications used for the foods, 73% of these were specifically related to wild or forest foods. Most dietary assessments were completed using a single day qualitative or quantitative 24 h open recall (
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.