ArticleJournal of nutritional science2026
Development and validation of an educational comic book on healthy eating in early childhood.
Article in Journal of nutritional science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Intervention Using Video and Comic Books Targeting Nutritional Outcomes in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review.Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association · 2026Pooled it
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
The objective of this study was to develop and validate an educational comic book designed to promote healthy eating among caregivers of young children. The study was conducted in four phases: (1) literature review and script development; (2) creation of the initial version of the comic book, including illustrations, layout and design, and calculation of the Flesch Readability Index (FI); (3) expert validation of the initial version and calculation of the Content Validity Index (CVI); and (4) adaptation of the comic book based on expert suggestions, recalculation of the FI, and pilot testing (CVI) with a lay population. A total of 64 volunteers participated in the validation process, including 14 expert judges and 50 caregivers responsible for feeding children aged 0 to 5 years. Statistical analysis included descriptive measures and inferential testing using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The FI score for the initial version was 85.0%, indicating a reading level classified as "easy to understand." After expert evaluation, the CVI reached 94%, reflecting high agreement among participants. In the revised version, the FI remained high at 84.7%, reinforcing the "easy to understand" reading level, while the CVI increased to 98% following the pilot test, demonstrating strong consensus among participants. A significant improvement in knowledge regarding healthy eating was observed after reading the comic book (
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.