Evidence mapPaperPMID 39134209Full record

ReviewAdvances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.)2024

Recommendations for Designing, Conducting, and Reporting Feeding Trials in Nutrition Research.

Delyse Sy Tien, Meghan Hockey, Daniel So, Jordan Stanford, Erin D Clarke, Clare E Collins, Heidi M Staudacher

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Methods and protocols · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
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

7 authors.

Delyse Sy TienFood & Mood Centre, Institute for Mental and Physical Health and Clinical Translation (IMPACT), Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.
Meghan HockeyFood & Mood Centre, Institute for Mental and Physical Health and Clinical Translation (IMPACT), Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.
Daniel SoDepartment of Gastroenterology, Monash University and Alfred Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Jordan StanfordSchool of Health Sciences, College of Health Medicine and Wellbeing, the University of Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia; Food and Nutrition Research Program, Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton Heights, New South Wales, Australia.
Erin D ClarkeSchool of Health Sciences, College of Health Medicine and Wellbeing, the University of Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia; Food and Nutrition Research Program, Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton Heights, New South Wales, Australia.
Clare E CollinsSchool of Health Sciences, College of Health Medicine and Wellbeing, the University of Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia; Food and Nutrition Research Program, Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton Heights, New South Wales, Australia.
Heidi M StaudacherFood & Mood Centre, Institute for Mental and Physical Health and Clinical Translation (IMPACT), Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia. Electronic address: heidi.staudacher@deakin.edu.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized controlled trials are the gold standard for clinical trials in nutrition science. For trials of whole diets, dietary counseling is advantageous as they offer clinical translatability although can vary in the fidelity of the intended intervention from participant to participant and across studies. Feeding trials, in which most or all food is provided, offer high precision and can provide proof-of-concept evidence that a dietary intervention is efficacious and can also better evaluate the effect of known quantities of foods and nutrients on physiology. However, they come with additional methodological complexities. Feeding trials also call for a variety of unique methodological considerations, not least of which relate to the design and delivery of diets to participants. This review aims to provide a comprehensive summary of recommendations for design and conduct of feeding trials, encompassing domiciled and nondomiciled feeding trials. Several pertinent aspects of trial design and methodology are discussed, including defining the study population to maximize retention, safety, and generalizability of findings, recommendations for design of control interventions and optimizing blinding, and specific considerations for clinical populations. A detailed stepwise process for menu design, development, validation, and delivery are also presented. These recommendations aim to facilitate methodologic consistency and execution of high-quality feeding trials, ultimately facilitating improved understanding of the role of diet in treating disease and the underpinning mechanisms.

Indexed as

Nutritional SciencesResearch DesignClinical Trials as TopicDietHumansconductdesigndiet interventionsfeeding trialsrecommendationsreporting

Identifiers

PMID39134209
PMCPMC11480951

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.