ReviewJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2026
Patient‑Reported Outcome Measures for Food Preference in Adults: A COSMIN‑Based Systematic Review.
Review in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Food preference is a key determinant of eating behavior and dietary choice in adults. Reliable and valid assessment tools are essential for tailoring dietary interventions, increasing adherence, and improving clinical and nutritional outcomes. Objective: To systematically identify and evaluate the psychometric properties of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) assessing food preference in adults, specifically focusing on the evidence provided in their initial development and validation reports. Design: Systematic review of measurement properties conducted in accordance with the COSMIN guidelines. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL for relevant literature published from database inception through September 2, 2025. Studies were included if they reported the initial development, validation, or cross-cultural adaptation of a self-reported food preference PROM in adults. Methodological quality and measurement properties were assessed using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist and COSMIN criteria for good measurement properties (version 2.0). Certainty of evidence was graded using a modified GRADE approach. Results: Thirty unique PROMs were identified. Five instruments-Preferences and Self-Efficacy of Diet and Physical Activity Behaviors Questionnaire for Latina Women (PSEDPALW), Brazilian version of the Food Choice Questionnaire (FCQ-BR), Food Liking Questionnaire (FLQ), the Food Liking Questionnaire in a French-Canadian Population (FLQ-FC), and Food Choice Determinants Questionnaire (FCDQ)-demonstrated sufficient content validity and internal consistency with moderate-to-high certainty of evidence and were classified as Class A recommendations. No included study reported evidence for measurement error, cross-cultural validity/measurement invariance, or responsiveness. Conclusion: FCDQ, FCQ-BR, FLQ, FLQ-FC, and PSEDPALW were reliable tools for assessing food preference in adults. While initial development efforts often establish robust internal structure, properties such as responsiveness and qualitative transparency in item generation are frequently overlooked during a tool's inception. Future research should ensure that the initial stages of PROM development adhere more strictly to COSMIN's qualitative standards and longitudinal validation protocols.
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.