ArticlePloS one2026
Exploring the validity and internal consistency of the 12-point Mediterranean Diet Adherence Screener among Lebanese pregnant women.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although 14-MEDAS is widely used for dietary assessment, it has not been validated in pregnant Lebanese women. This study assesses its validity and internal consistency against a Food Frequency Questionnaire (FFQ) and 24-hour recalls (24HR). A cross-sectional study with 500 pregnant women was conducted between March and October 2023. Food consumption data were gathered using a validated FFQ and three non-consecutive 24-HR to validate the 14-MEDAS. Adherence thresholds were adjusted for the removal of the alcohol item (contraindicated during pregnancy) and olive oil quantity (low communalities: < 0.30), leading to a maximum score of 12 (12-MEDAS). Internal consistency, as measured by KR-21, was acceptable (0.76) reflecting the formative nature of the scale. Factor analysis revealed a four-factor structure explaining 46.28% of the variance. The 12-MEDAS demonstrated suboptimal relative validity. While it provides a quick assessment of adherence to the Mediterranean Diet, discrepancies between the 12-MEDAS and reference methods (FFQ and 24HR) likely stem from the tool's inability to account for pregnancy- and locally-specific food groups and habits, as well as measurement errors inherent to self-reported methods. The results warrant a cultural and physiological adaptation, such as adjusting for the recommended alcohol abstinence, and considering local food sources and eating habits.
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.