SynthesisComprehensive reviews in food science and food safety2026
Front-of-Package Nutrition Labeling for Foods and Beverages Marketed to Children: Behavioral, Nutritional, and Cognitive-Affective Outcomes and Methodological Quality-A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Comprehensive reviews in food science and food safety, 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Front-of-package labeling (FOPL) is increasingly used to support healthier food choices, but its role in early childhood, where decisions are largely caregiver-mediated, remains uncertain. This systematic review assessed the methodological quality and certainty of evidence on FOPL for foods and beverages marketed to children and synthesized behavioral, nutritional, and cognitive-affective outcomes among children and caregivers. Following PRISMA 2020, five bibliographic databases and BASE were searched through July 2025. Risk of bias was assessed using JBI tools, and certainty was evaluated using GRADE and GRADE-CERQual. Thirty-nine studies were included: 18 RCTs, five quasi-experimental studies, six cross-sectional studies, and 10 qualitative studies. Evidence most consistently supported effects on perceived healthfulness, purchase intention, and, in some comparisons, product selection and purchase. Warning labels showed the clearest directional pattern, particularly for discouraging selection or intended purchase of less healthy products, but evidence varied by outcome and comparator. Nutritional outcomes were more heterogeneous and generally of low or very low certainty. Educational components tended to favor FOPL conditions in direction-of-effect summaries, but the evidence was of very low certainty and insufficient to establish a reliable incremental benefit. Qualitative findings indicated that FOPL can function as a simple heuristic for caregivers, although use is shaped by comprehension, trust, context, and everyday constraints. Overall, FOPL may support early stages of caregiver-mediated decision-making, but sustained nutritional impact remains uncertain. The absence of a universally superior format argues against one-size-fits-all labeling; policies should prioritize interpretive clarity and contextual fit and support longitudinal, real-world evaluations.
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.