ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2025
A comparison of development methods used to define portion sizes in food-based dietary guidelines around the world.
Article in Frontiers in nutrition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Examination of Sustainability Messaging in European Food-Based Dietary Guidelines.Current developments in nutrition · 2026Article
- Quantitative comparison of food-based dietary guidelines: alignment with the Slovenian nutrition guidelines 2025 and Slovenian intake.European journal of nutrition · 2026Review
- European food-based dietary guidelines: mapping methodological heterogeneity, sustainability integration gaps and implementation barriers.Frontiers in 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Food-based dietary guidelines (FBDGs) are essential public health tools for delivering dietary recommendations, and generally include guidance on portion sizes. Despite existing guidelines on developing and implementing FBDGs, there is still no consensus on best practices for their formulation. This paper compares the methodologies used by public health organizations to create FBDGs and examines how both methodology and geographical location may influence recommended portion sizes. Methods: Documents on FBDG development were obtained from the Food and Agriculture Organization online repository of FBDGs, either directly from consumer-facing FBDG or from corresponding scientific reports. Methodological details in FBDG development were extracted and categorized. Recommended portions in grams per day were extracted for 15 food categories to enable comparison across development methods and global regions. Results: FBDGs from 96 countries were accessed and translated. Of these, Discussion: Results indicate little variation in the recommendations for portion size across development methods, and for most food groups, across global regions. These findings suggest there is potential to harmonize portion size derivation in FBDGs at regional or global levels. However, further research is needed to assess whether harmonized guidance can apply to other aspects of FBDGs.
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.