ArticleBMJ nutrition, prevention & health2023
Do treats facilitate the interpretation of findings on caloric restriction?
Article in BMJ nutrition, prevention & health, 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Food can build social bonds and enhance interpersonal relationships. An area of research perhaps at odds with food abundance, is caloric restriction (CR), intermittent fasting (IF) or short-term fasting (STF). We aimed to study the impact of offering treats on the audience during presentations on IF and STF and whether this impacted the audience's reception of the subject. The contradiction of the tempting nature of sharing brownies juxtaposed with the potential health benefits presented is a light-hearted subject in a world where nutritional intake and health outcomes are the object of intense academic discussion. Objective: Investigate how treats influence hospital personnel interpretation of information presented on the potential benefits of CR, IF and STF. Methods: This trial consists of a cross-sectional study (CSS) and a randomised controlled trial (RCT) conducted at three study centres. The CSS involved a survey administered to healthcare professionals to assess their knowledge, experience and willingness regarding IF and/or STF. In the RCT, brownies were randomly provided to healthcare staff attending a scientific meeting on restricting calories. Results: 135 participants were included in the CSS and 64 participants joined the randomised experiment. We found that the randomisation had no statistically significant effect. Only 2 out of 64 were aware of the irony of the provided treatment. In the CSS, participants most often cited the expected beneficial effects on their short-term and long-term health as important reasons for adhering to IF and/or STF. Perceiving fasting as beneficial was mostly influenced by knowledge on the topic and previously adhering to a fasting diet. Discussion: In this light-hearted, holiday-inspired exploratory study, we found that providing your audience with treats does not influence participants' opinion of you or your research, even when it focuses on the benefits of reducing calorie intake. The recipients of the treat will remain critical of presented findings, and due to prior experiences will be receptive to the counterintuitive topic of fasting.
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.