Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37101143›Full record

Trial reportThe international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity2023

Socioeconomic position and the influence of food portion size on daily energy intake in adult females: two randomized controlled trials.

Tess Langfield, Katie Clarke, Lucile Marty, Andrew Jones, Eric Robinson

Erratum issued 2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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.

NCT05173376 nacompletednot on this map

Socioeconomic Position and the Effect of Portion Size Reduction: a 1-day Dietary Behaviour Experimental Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of LiverpoolRan2021 to 2022Enrolled54ConditionsDiet, Healthy, Eating Behavior, ObesityArmsPortion size manipulation
NCT05399836 nacompletednot on this map

Subjective Social Status and the Effect of Portion Size Reduction: a 1-day Dietary Behaviour Experimental Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of LiverpoolRan2022 to 2022Enrolled47ConditionsDiet, Healthy, Eating Behavior, ObesityArmsPortion size manipulation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Tess LangfieldDepartment of Psychological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0552-1019
Katie ClarkeDepartment of Psychological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Lucile MartyCentre Des Sciences Du Goût Et de L'Alimentation, CNRS, INRAE, Institut Agro, Université Bourgogne Franche-Comté, 21000, Dijon, France.
Andrew JonesDepartment of Psychological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Eric RobinsonDepartment of Psychological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. eric.robinson@liverpool.ac.uk.
University of Liverpool · GBCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundReducing portion sizes of commercially available foods could be an effective public health strategy to reduce population energy intake, but recent research suggests that the effect portion size has on energy intake may differ based on socioeconomic position (SEP).

objectiveWe tested whether the effect of reducing food portion sizes on daily energy intake differed based on SEP.

methodsParticipants were served either smaller or larger portions of food at lunch and evening meals (N = 50; Study 1) and breakfast, lunch and evening meals (N = 46; Study 2) in the laboratory on two separate days, in repeated-measures designs. The primary outcome was total daily energy intake (kcal). Participant recruitment was stratified by primary indicators of SEP; highest educational qualification (Study 1) and subjective social status (Study 2), and randomisation to the order portion sizes were served was stratified by SEP. Secondary indicators of SEP in both studies included household income, self-reported childhood financial hardship and a measure accounting for total years in education.

resultsIn both studies, smaller (vs larger) meal portions led to a reduction in daily energy intake (ps < .02). Smaller portions resulted in a reduction of 235 kcal per day (95% CI: 134, 336) in Study 1 and 143 kcal per day (95% CI: 24, 263) in Study 2. There was no evidence in either study that effects of portion size on energy intake differed by SEP. Results were consistent when examining effects on portion-manipulated meal (as opposed to daily) energy intake.

conclusionsReducing meal portion sizes could be an effective way to reduce overall daily energy intake and contrary to other suggestions it may be a socioeconomically equitable approach to improving diet.

trial registrationThese trials were registered at www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov as NCT05173376 and NCT05399836.

Indexed as

DietPortion SizeAdultChildEnergy IntakeFemaleHumansMealsSocioeconomic FactorsEnergy intakeFood environmentNudgingPortion controlPortion sizeSocioeconomic position

Identifiers

PMID37101143
PMCPMC10134633
OpenAlexW4367040472

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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 Socratic graph.