ReviewEuropean journal of nutrition2026
Quantitative comparison of food-based dietary guidelines: alignment with the Slovenian nutrition guidelines 2025 and Slovenian intake.
Review in European journal of nutrition, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeFood-based dietary guidelines (FBDGs) are a key instrument for translating nutrition science into public health advice, yet direct comparison across guidelines is hindered by differences in food grouping, units, and formulation of recommendations. Slovenia has recently developed and scientifically completed the Slovenian Nutrition Guidelines 2025 (SNG2025), its updated FBDGs, which have been submitted for governmental adoption but are not yet officially adopted. The SNG2025 extend conventional FBDGs into a quantitative, plant-forward framework that integrates health and environmental sustainability. However, their quantitative position relative to contemporary international guidelines and nationally representative intake data has not yet been systematically evaluated.
methodsWe compared 13 national FBDGs (Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Germany, Austria, Spain, France, Canada, United States, China, United Kingdom and Australia) and two international frameworks (Nordic Nutrition Recommendations and EAT-Lancet) with the SNG2025. Recommendations were extracted for major food groups and mathematically converted (standardised) to a common unit (g/day) using predefined conversion factors and explicitly stated assumptions.
resultsThe SNG2025 are largely consistent with international practice. Strong convergence was observed for fruits and vegetables, while recommendations for legumes, nuts, and whole grains closely aligned with EAT-Lancet targets and those from Spain and Austria. Slovenian upper limits for meat, dairy and eggs were comparable to those in several European and international guidelines; notably, some FBDGs suggest more stringent reductions than the SNG2025. Several guidelines allow fortified plant-based alternatives to fully replace animal-based dairy. Greater variability was observed for fish and seafood, reflecting regional dietary traditions. Significant heterogeneity in the formulation of recommendations (e.g., portion-based vs. weight-based) was identified.
conclusionsThe SNG2025 are well aligned with contemporary international and national recommendations and align with widely accepted quantitative ranges for all major food groups. Differences between guidelines reflect cultural framing and quantification rather than conflicting nutritional principles. The SNG2025 demonstrate that contemporary dietary guidelines can integrate quantitative guidance, a plant-forward approach, and sustainability considerations while remaining aligned with international evidence. These findings support the use of SNG2025 as a reference framework for the development and evaluation of future dietary guidelines in comparable settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.