Trial reportEuropean journal of nutrition2025
Effects of front-of-package nutrition labelling systems on objective understanding and purchase intention in El Salvador: results from a multi-arm parallel-group randomised controlled trial.
Trial report 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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Consumer understanding, preferences and acceptance of front-of-pack labels in Thailand: foundational evidence for policy development.Public health 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeFront-of-package labelling (FOPL) schemes have been developed to provide more useful information to consumers and facilitate more critical and healthier food choices. This single-blinded multi-arm parallel-group randomised controlled trial aimed at assessing the effect of different FOPL schemes on the objective understanding of the nutritional content and intention to purchase products, in El Salvador.
methodsParticipants (n = 1204) were exposed to two-dimensional images of 15 mock-up products presented at random and balanced orders. Participants were exposed to mock-ups featuring no FOPL scheme (control group, n = 305) or one of the following schemes: black octagonal warning labels (OWL) (n = 302), traffic-light labelling (TFL) (n = 297), or guideline daily amounts (GDA) (n = 300).
resultsThe odds for choosing to purchase the least harmful of the options more often was the highest in the OWL group compared to the control group: two times higher in the OWL group (OR 2·21, 95% confidence interval 1·58 - 3·11), and 49% higher in the TFL (1·49, 95%CI 1·06 - 2·11), with no changes in the GDA (1·06, 95%CI 0·75 - 1·50). OWL also resulted in the highest odds for correctly identifying the least harmful option (OR 3·77, 95%CI 2·79 to 5·09), and for correctly identifying a product with higher amounts of sugars, sodium, total fat, and/or saturated fats (3·26, 95%CI 2·40 to 4·43).
conclusionOWL outperformed GDA and TFL in its ability to improve objective understanding of nutritional information and purchase intention. Results support the adoption of OWL in El Salvador. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN 12,389,597. DATE OF REGISTRATION: 17 July 2023 (retrospectively registered).
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.