Trial reportJAMA network open2025
Traffic Light Labels and Dietary Behavior Change: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Trial report in JAMA network open, 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.
- Perception-Adoption Gap of an AI Dietary Management App in Real-World Dining Settings: A Field Study.Nutrients · 2026Observational
- From signal to strategy: Advancing traffic-light lifestyle frameworks through digital augmentation and holistic NCD risk profiling.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2026Article
- Developing Dietary Self-Management Personas for mHealth Tools Among Patients with Kidney Failure Undergoing Hemodialysis: A Multi-Method Study.Patient preference and adherence · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Evidence from everyday dining situations regarding the effects of traffic light labels (TLLs) on dietary improvement remains inconsistent. Objective: To evaluate the effects of TLLs on dietary consumption and choices in cafeteria settings. Design, Setting, and Participants: This 2-arm, parallel randomized clinical trial was conducted at a company staff cafeteria in Shanghai, China, from September to December 2022. Of 153 adult participants, 76 were randomly assigned to the intervention group and 77 to the control group. Data analysis was conducted from July to October 2024. Intervention: The intervention group gained access to TLLs offering a comprehensive rating of added sugar, fat, and sodium for each dish on the lunch menu, while the control group did not. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were lunch intake of added sugar, fat, and sodium. Secondary outcomes included the mean traffic light score (calculated based on the number of dishes consumed, with higher scores indicating worse overall dietary choices) and number of green-coded (reaching dietary recommendations), yellow-coded (between the recommendation and mean intake of the Chinese population), and red-coded (above the upper limit of intake) dishes. The primary and secondary outcomes were automatically calculated based on the precollected recipe dataset of the cafeteria and the Chinese food composition database when participants ordered meals using an applet during weekday lunchtime. Weekly median values of these outcomes were used for analyses, which were conducted for the intention-to-treat population. Results: Among 153 participants, the mean (SD) age was 32.7 (7.5) years, and 97 (63.4%) were female. At week 12, compared with the control group, the intervention group demonstrated no statistically significant decrease in dietary consumption of added sugar (mean difference, -0.15 [95% CI, -0.75 to 0.46] g), fat (mean difference, -1.54 [95% CI, -6.13 to 3.05] g), or sodium (mean difference, -116.12 [95% CI, -454.78 to 222.54] mg). Similarly, no statistically significant differences were observed in dietary choices based on the mean traffic light score (mean difference, -0.05 [95% CI, -0.12 to 0.03]) or the number of green-coded (odds ratio [OR], 1.15 [95% CI, 0.99-1.32]), yellow-coded (OR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.90-1.20]), and red-coded (OR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.57-1.23]) dishes. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, TLLs indicating added sugar, fat, and sodium ratings on menus failed to improve dietary consumption and choices in a company cafeteria setting. This finding suggests that TLLs on menus may not effectively promote dietary improvement in this setting. Trial Registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry Identifier: ChiCTR2100051771.
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.