ArticleNutrition journal2023
Development and validation of a novel food exchange system for Chinese pregnant women.
Article in Nutrition journal, 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cultural adaptations of food exchange lists: A scoping review of applications in non-communicable disease management.Asia Pacific journal of clinical nutrition · 2026Article
- Development of a Meal-Planning Exchange List for Traditional Sweets and Appetizers in Gulf Cooperation Council Countries: Insights from Qatar.Nutrients · 2025Observational
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe dietary nutritional status of pregnant women is critical for maintaining the health of both mothers and infants. Food exchange systems have been employed in the nutritional guidance of patients in China, although their application in the dietary guidance of healthy pregnant women is quite limited. This study aimed to develop a novel food exchange system for Chinese pregnant women (NFES-CPW) and evaluate the relative validation of its application.
methodsNFES-CPW covers approximately 500 types of food from ten categories and has more elaborate food portion sizes. It established a recommendation index for guiding food selection and used energy, water content, and protein as the exchange basis to balance the supply of energy and important nutrients throughout pregnancy. Furthermore, dietitians used the NFES-CPW and traditional food exchange system to generate new recipes based on the sample recipe. There were 40 derived recipes for each of the two food exchange methods. The food consumption, energy, and key nutrients of each recipe were calculated, and the differences between the two food exchange systems were compared using the Wilcoxon rank sum test or the Chi-square test.
resultsThe results revealed that compared to those derived from traditional food exchange system, the NFES-CPW derived recipes had a better dietary structure, as evidenced by the intakes of whole-grain cereals, beans excluding soybeans, potatoes, fruits, fish, shrimp and shellfish, as well as eggs (P < 0.05), which were more conducive to reaching the recommended range of balanced dietary pagoda. After calculating energy and nutrients, although these two food exchange systems have similar effects on the dietary energy and macronutrient intake of pregnant women, the intake of micronutrients in NFES-CPW derived recipes was significantly higher than that from the traditional food exchange system, which was more conducive to meeting the dietary requirements of pregnant women. The outstanding improvement are primarily vitamin A, vitamin B
conclusionsTherefore, NFES-CPW is an appropriate tool that adheres to Chinese dietary characteristics and can provide suitable dietary guidance to pregnant women.
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.