ArticleEuropean journal of nutrition2025
Method to define recommended portion sizes for consumer guidance.
Article in European journal of nutrition, 2025. 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.
- A fraction of diet-derived microRNAs present in plant extracellular vesicles remain detectable after gastrointestinal digestion and shows epithelial uptake in a CaCo-2 cell model.Food chemistry. Molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Impact simulation of portion guidance on commonly consumed packaged food to reduce discretionary energy and public health sensitive nutrients in the United States, United Kingdom, and France.European journal of nutrition · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeProvision of nutrition information is mandated for packaged foods, but few countries regulate serving sizes. Our objective was to develop a methodology to establish globally consistent portion size recommendations for both nutrient-dense and discretionary foods.
methodsA stepwise systematic approach incorporated portion values from serving size regulations (n = 10), food-based dietary guidelines (FBDG; n = 90, aggregated into 6 regions), and reported food intakes from Europe and Australia. Global Portion Values (GPVs) for 50 food groups were derived as the median of all data inputs. Consistency was evaluated using 25th and 75th percentiles and dispersion of input values (percent of median absolute deviations (MAD)/median).
resultsGPVs were calculated for 50 food groups organized into nine food categories: Milk/Dairy (n = 6 food groups), Protein Foods (n = 5), Mixed Dishes (n = 4), Grains (n = 7), Fruits/Vegetables (n = 5), Snacks/Sweets (n = 12), Sauces/Condiments (n = 5), Fats/Oils/Sugars (n = 4) and Beverages (n = 2). Data inputs for each portion value ranged from 6 to 18; only 4 foods had < 10 inputs; 21 had ≥ 15. Dispersion ranged from 0 to 33%; 88% of GPVs were considered "consistent" (dispersion < 25%) and 9 groups had 0% variation, indicating high consistency. Example GPVs include: 240mL for milk (16 inputs, 8% dispersion); 90 g for meat/poultry/fish main dishes (16 inputs, 13% dispersion); 50 g for bread/rolls (18 inputs, 20% dispersion); 130 g for canned vegetables (10 inputs, 2% dispersion); 30 g for chocolate (15 inputs, 17% dispersion); and 250mL for soft drinks (17 inputs, 20% dispersion).
conclusionsThis standardized approach provides clear and consistent portion recommendations that, if adopted, could help consumers make informed choices about appropriate portions.
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.