ArticleRevista de saude publica2024
Description and performance of two diet quality scores based on the Nova classification.
Article in Revista de saude publica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Screen use and consumption of ultra-processed foods among Brazilian adolescents.Revista de saude publica · 2026Article
- Article
- NutriNet-Brasil, a web-based prospective study on dietary patterns and risk of chronic diseases: cohort profile.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Narrative Review of the Validity and Cross-Context Equivalence of Healthy Diet Metrics and Their Data Collection Methods for Global Monitoring.Current developments in nutrition · 2025Review
- A novel FFQ for Brazilian adults based on the Nova classification system: development, reproducibility and validation.Public health nutrition · 2025Article
- Use of Digital Tools for the Assessment of Food Consumption in Brazil: A Scoping Review.Nutrients · 2024Article
- QuestNova: innovation in food consumption assessment according to industrial processing.Revista de saude publica · 2024Article
- Nova diet quality scores and risk of weight gain in the NutriNet-Brasil cohort study.Public health nutrition · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo describe two low-burden diet quality scores and evaluate their performance in reflecting the dietary share of the least and most processed foods defined within the Nova food system classification.
methodsThis cross-sectional study included data from the NutriNet-Brasil cohort. Participants answered the Nova24hScreener, a 3-minute self-administered questionnaire measuring the consumption of a set of foods on the day before. Food items included in this tool belong to two main groups of the Nova classification: unprocessed or minimally processed whole plant foods (WPF, 33 items) and ultra-processed foods (UPF, 23 items). Two scores were obtained by summing the number of items checked: the Nova-WPF and the Nova-UPF. We compared the scores, respectively, with the dietary intake (% of total energy) of all unprocessed or minimally processed whole plant foods and all ultra-processed foods obtained from a full self-administered web-based 24-hour recall performed on the same day.
resultsThe approximate quintiles of each score had a direct and linear relationship with the corresponding % of energy intake (p-value for linear trend < 0.001). We found a substantial agreement between the intervals of each score and the corresponding % of energy intake (Nova-WPF score: Prevalence-Adjusted and Bias-Adjusted Kappa (PABAK) 0.72, 95%CI 0.64-0.81; Nova-UPF score: PABAK 0.79, 95%CI 0.69-0.88).
conclusionsThese two scores performed well against the dietary share of unprocessed or minimally processed whole plant foods and ultra-processed foods in Brazil and can be used to evaluate and monitor diet quality.
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.