ArticleEuropean journal of clinical nutrition2025
Differences between the normal and perceived appropriate portion sizes of discretionary foods.
Article in European journal of clinical nutrition, 2025. 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.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere are limited data on the amount of discretionary foods that people normally consume and consider as appropriate at one eating occasion. This study aimed to provide an overview of the range and assess differences of the 'normal portion size' and 'perceived appropriate portion size' of energy-dense nutrient-poor discretionary foods among consumers aged 18-65 years.
methodsTo measure normal and perceived appropriate portion sizes, a validated online image-series questionnaire consisting of eight successive portion size options for 15 discretionary foods was completed at two timepoints. Quantile regression models were used to estimate the ranges (lower boundary at 17
resultsA final sample of 295 participants were included in the analysis (51% females, mean age 39.5 ± 14.1 years). The normal portion sizes were significantly higher than the perceived appropriate portion sizes across all test foods, with the effects of sex, age, and BMI being significant for some foods.
conclusionThe finding suggests that consumers would normally consume a portion size that was larger than what they perceive to be appropriate for discretionary foods. The estimated lower and upper boundaries would be valuable for the development of pragmatic public health messages to empower consumers towards better portion control.
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.