ArticlePloS one2024
Comfort food concepts and contexts in which they are used: A scoping review protocol.
Article in PloS one, 2024. 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.
- Article
- Review
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
objectiveThe objectives of this study are to clarify the scientific definition of comfort food, identify which methodologies are being used in research on this topic and which factors are associated with the consumption of comfort food.
introductionThe consumption of comfort foods is subjective and influenced by individual experiences, as they are known and appreciated by the person. However, divergences about the definition of comfort food in the scientific literature reflect the heterogeneity of the methods used in the research, and consequently identification of possible factors associated with the consumption of this type of food, which can influence the knowledge about the consumption of these foods and their potential effects on the health of those who consume them. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Works with a qualitative and quantitative approach published in full in indexed sources or in gray literature, available online in the databases consulted, without restriction on language or year of publication will be included.
methodsThe protocol was built based on the methodological recommendations of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) for scoping reviews and the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). The Participants, Concept and Context (PCC) mnemonic strategy was built: general population, comfort food concept and world context. Based on this, search strategies were developed for different databases. Instruments were also developed for recording documents, extracting data, justifying the exclusion of documents and not obtaining access to content. A Pilot Study was conducted to test the developed methodology and instruments. The protocol has been registered with the Open Science Framework (OSF) (https://osf.io/gnza4/). The results will be presented in the review resulting from this protocol in three ways: accounting of the documents will be recorded in a PRISMA Flow Diagram, the main information of the studies and their frequencies will be presented in a table, and the union of these outcomes will be presented visually in a Graphical Abstract.
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.