ArticleBMJ open2025
Comparison of nutritional status and dietary intake among khat (Catha edulis) chewer and non-chewer women of reproductive age in Halaba Zone, South Ethiopia: a comparative cross-sectional study.
Article in BMJ open, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to compare the nutritional status and dietary intake between khat chewer and non-chewer women of reproductive age in Halaba Zone, South Ethiopia.
designA comparative cross-sectional study was conducted.
settingThe study was conducted in Halaba Zone, South Ethiopia.
participantsA total of 792 (396 khat chewers and 396 non-chewers) women of reproductive age were selected by a simple random sampling technique from 20 June 2023 to 26 August 2023. OUTCOME MEASURES: Dietary intake was assessed by a single 24-hour recall method. The nutrient adequacy ratio and mean adequacy ratio were applied to estimate the adequacy of micronutrients. Standing height was measured using a wall-mounted stadiometer to the nearest 0.1 cm, and weight of the women was measured to the nearest 0.1 kg on a battery-powered digital scale (Seca Gmbh & Co. KG, Germany). A linear regression model was fitted to determine the relationship between nutritional status and khat chewing. Binary logistic regression analyses were used to estimate the odds of nutrient intake inadequacy among the two study groups. A p value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant at 95% CI.
resultsWomen who chewed khat had a higher prevalence of underweight (36.6%) than those who did not (9.4%). The mean (SD) body mass index for khat chewer women was 48.66±5.39 kg, while that of non-chewer women was 55.29±6.75 kg. Women who chewed khat were significantly more likely to be underweight than those who had never chewed khat (β = -1.91, 95% CI -2.30 to -1.53; p<0.001). The analysis revealed that out of the nine nutrients assessed, the intake of seven nutrients was significantly lower in khat-chewer women compared with non-chewer women. Women who chewed khat were more likely to have inadequate carbohydrate (AOR=2.05 (95% CI 1.31 to 3.21), p<0.01), protein (AOR=2.18 (95% CI 1.51 to 3.14), p<0.001), thiamine (AOR=4.25 (95% CI 2.72 to 6.63), p<0.001), riboflavin (AOR=4.02 (95% CI 2.48 to 6.50), p<0.001), niacin (AOR=2.34 (95% CI 1.59 to 3.45), p<0.001), vitamin B
conclusionsWomen who chewed khat were significantly more likely to be underweight compared with those who had never chewed khat. Khat chewers were more likely than non-chewers to have inadequate carbohydrate, protein, thiamine, riboflavin, niacin, vitamin B
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.