Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33313795›Full record

SynthesisAdvances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.)2021

Does Personalized Nutrition Advice Improve Dietary Intake in Healthy Adults? A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Rachael Jinnette, Ai Narita, Byron Manning, Sarah A McNaughton, John C Mathers, Katherine M Livingstone

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 65 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
65citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
10.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

65 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 140 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Digital behaviour change interventions to increase vegetable intake in adults: a systematic review.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2023
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Feasibility of a co-designed and personalised intervention to improve vegetable intake in rural-dwelling young adults.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2025
    Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

5 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Rachael JinnetteSchool of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
Ai NaritaSchool of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
Byron ManningSchool of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
Sarah A McNaughtonInstitute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
John C MathersHuman Nutrition Research Centre, Centre for Healthier Lives, Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle on Tyne, United Kingdom.
Katherine M LivingstoneInstitute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
Deakin University · AUNewcastle University · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/P020941/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Personalized nutrition (PN) behavior-change interventions are being used increasingly in attempts to improve dietary intake; however, the impact of PN advice on improvements in dietary intake has not been reviewed systematically. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effect of PN advice on changes in dietary intake compared with generalized advice in healthy adults. Three databases (EMBASE, PubMed, and CINAHL) were searched between 2009 and 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that tested the effect of PN and tailored advice based on diet, phenotype, or genetic information. The Evidence Analysis Library Quality Criteria checklist was used to conduct a risk-of-bias assessment. Information on intervention design and changes in nutrients, foods, and dietary patterns was extracted from the 11 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Studies were conducted in the United States, Canada, or Europe; reported outcomes on 57 to 1488 participants; and varied in follow-up duration from 1 to 12 mo. Five studies incorporated behavior-change techniques. The risk of bias for included studies was low. Overall, the available evidence suggests that dietary intake is improved to a greater extent in participants randomly assigned to receive PN advice compared with generalized dietary advice. Additional well-designed PN RCTs are needed that incorporate behavior-change techniques, a broader range of dietary outcomes, and comparisons between personalization based on dietary, biological, and/or lifestyle information.

Indexed as

DietEatingAdultCanadaEuropeHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as Topicadultsbehavior changedietdietary patternsgenotypenutritionpersonalized nutritionphenotypesystematic review

Identifiers

PMID33313795
PMCPMC8166555
OpenAlexW3092886169

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.