SynthesisThe American journal of clinical nutrition2026
Eating while distracted: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of distraction on concurrent and later energy intake in adults.
Synthesis in The American journal of clinical nutrition, 2026. 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.
- Is there an association between dietary fiber intake, screen time, and physical activity among students aged 14 to 17 years?-a cross-sectional study.Translational pediatrics · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEating while distracted [e.g., television (TV) watching, phone use] is believed to increase food intake. A previous small meta-analysis of experimental studies (published in American Journal of Clinical Nutrition) supported this. Many studies have since been published, but there has been no updated analysis.
objectivesThis study aimed to conduct an updated systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the effect of distraction on concurrent and later energy intake.
methodsEligible articles (searching up to December 2024) were identified from: a previously conducted meta-analysis which included studies up until 2012; database searches from 2012 to 2024 (PsycINFO, Medline, and PubMed); and both forward and backward citation searching. We followed PRISMA guidelines and conducted generic variance inverse meta-analyses with intake as the outcome variable for both concurrent and later energy intake.
resultsA total of 50 eligible studies were included (40 measuring concurrent intake, 10 measuring later intake). Random effects meta-analyses revealed that the overall effect of distraction on concurrent energy intake was nonsignificant [standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.123, 95% confidence interval (CI): <-0.01, 0.25; P = 0.051]. Moderator analyses revealed that type of distractor moderated the effect of distraction on eating, with passive distractor tasks (e.g., TV watching) resulting in greater energy intake when distracted [SMD = 0.272 (95% CI: 0.128, 0.417)], whereas physically demanding distractors [SMD = -0.139 (95% CI: -0.334, 0.057)] and cognitively demanding distractors [SMD = 0.202 (95% CI: -0.028, 0.432)] did not. The effect of distraction on later energy intake was statistically significant, such that eating while distracted led to greater intake at a subsequent eating episode [SMD = 0.419 (95% CI: 0.195, 0.642)].
conclusionsDistracted eating increases later energy intake; however, the effect of distracted eating on concurrent energy intake is less consistent, and only relatively passive distractors may increase energy intake. Collectively, these findings suggest that distraction is a potential contributor to overeating. This systematic review and meta-analysis was registered at PROSPERO as CRD42024518245.
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.