SynthesisNature food2026
Systematic review of nutrient profile models for front-of-pack nutrition labelling.
Synthesis in Nature food, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Front-of-pack nutrition labelling (FOPNL) systems, based on underlying nutrient profile models (NPMs) that classify foods according to their nutritional composition, are key policies for tackling diet-related non-communicable diseases. Yet, the growing number of NPMs poses a challenge for policymakers to select appropriate models for FOPNL policies. This systematic review identifies and characterizes the NPMs developed and/or used for FOPNL systems, from both peer-reviewed and grey literature. We identified 42 NPMs, of which 15 were developed for warning labels, 11 for nutrient-specific systems (including traffic-light labelling), 11 for health endorsements, 4 for summary scores and 1 for other systems. All NPMs limited the content of sugar, and most limited sodium and saturated fat. Convergent and criterion validity were demonstrated for nine and three NPMs, respectively. Considerable heterogeneity across NPMs suggests limited consensus on what constitutes the most appropriate NPM for FOPNL, reinforcing the need for greater regional guidance and alignment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42665731What 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.