ArticleFujita medical journal2026
Preliminary investigation of nutritional intake among female university students using the brief-type self-administered diet history questionnaire (BDHQ).
Article in Fujita medical journal, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study examines the dietary intake and eating habits of female university students and compares key nutritional indicators according to the body mass index (BMI) categories and adequacy of estimated energy requirements. Methods: Dietary surveys were conducted among 50 female nursing students using the brief-type self-administered diet history questionnaire (BDHQ). Participants were classified into BMI categories (underweight group, n=7; normal-weight group, n=41) and energy-intake adequacy groups based on estimated energy requirements (inadequate energy intake group, n=43; adequate/excess energy intake group, n=7). Nutrient intake status was examined between energy intake adequacy groups, with additional consideration of the BMI categories. Results: No significant differences in energy or macronutrient intake were observed between BMI-based groups (p>0.05). In contrast, when comparing energy intake adequacy, 88.4% of the participants in the inadequate energy intake group had insufficient carbohydrate intake, and their intakes of protein, vitamin C, iron, and folate were lower than those in the adequate/excess energy intake group (all p<0.05). Discussion: Among female university students, no group differences were detected based on BMI alone. However, in the inadequate energy intake group, marked inadequacies were observed in the intake of nutrients. These findings indicate that dietary problems cannot be captured solely by BMI and require individualized nutritional counseling. Conclusion: Nutritional assessment of female university students should incorporate BMI and adequacy of energy intake relative to estimated energy requirements, with individualized approaches tailored to each student.
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.