dataesr/scientific-paragraphs-categorization huggingface dataset:
Insufficient information about the sequence generation process to permit judgement of 'low risk' or 'high risk' Allocation concealment Unclear risk Comment: method of concealment is not described. Insufficient information (selection bias) to permit judgement of 'low risk' or 'high risk' Blinding of participants and personnel (perfor-mance bias) Consumption outcome Quote: "Blinding of outcome as-Low risk Low risk Comment: no blinding of outcome assessment, but the review authors judge sessment (detection bias) that the outcome measurement is not likely to be influenced by lack of blind- Consumption outcome ing Incomplete outcome data Low risk Comment: no missing outcome data for consumption outcome (attrition bias) Consumption outcome Selective reporting (re- Unclear risk Comment: search for record(s) containing details of study protocol conduct- porting bias) ed in ClinicalTrials.
do Vale 2008 (S2) Cochrane Library Trusted evidence. Informed decisions. Better health. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Cavanagh 2013 (Continued) concerns activated; large package format (2 x 200 g packages potato chips -400 g total), self regulatory concerns not activated; large package format (2 x 200 g packages potato chips -400 g total), self regula- tory concerns activated Number of comparisons analysed: 1 Comparisons analysed: Intervention 1: small package format (9 x 45 g packages potato chips -405 g to- tal); versus Intervention 2: large package format (2 x 200 g packages potato chips -400 g total) Concurrent intervention components: yes. Regulatory concerns (not activated versus activated) -pro- vided to both the Intervention 1 and Intervention 2 groups Outcomes Outcomes reported in study: amount of potato chips consumed (grams); any potato chips consumed? (dichotomous) Selection outcome analysed: N/A Measurement of selection outcome: N/A Timing of selection outcome measurement: N/A Consumption outcome analysed: amount of potato chips consumed (grams) Summary of risk of bias Consumption outcome Unclear risk Measurement of consumption outcome: objective Unclear risk Timing of consumption outcome measurement: immediate (≤ 1 day) Funding source Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology Methods Study design: between-subjects randomised controlled trial Participants Setting: laboratory setting Risk of bias Geographical region: Tilburg University, Tilburg, Netherlands Bias Number of enrolled participants: 140 undergraduate students Authors' judgement Support for judgement Random sequence genera- Number (%) of enrolled participants completing the study: 73 (52%) Unclear risk Comment: method of sequence generation for condition order is not de- tion (selection bias) scribed.
They were not different from those who did complete the study on baseline characteristics. Eleven males and nine females completed the study. Data reported includes only those 20 persons completing all study sessions. "Comment: reason for missing outcome data is unlikely to be related to consumption outcome and study authors state that participants who did not complete the study are not different from those who did in terms of baseline characteristics Cochrane Library Cochrane Library Cochrane Library Trusted evidence. Informed decisions. Better health. Trusted evidence. Informed decisions. Better health. Trusted evidence. Informed decisions. Better health. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Coelho do Vale 2008 (S2) (Continued) Devitt 2004 (Continued) Bias Number (%) of enrolled participants completing the study: 20 (77%) Authors' judgement Support for judgement Study completers -mean age (SD): 22.
6 (5. 8) Random sequence genera- Unclear risk Comment: method of sequence generation for condition order is not de- tion (selection bias) Study completers -sex: male (55%) and female (45%) scribed. Insufficient information about the sequence generation process to Study completers -mean BMI kg/m 2 (SD): 25. 3 (4. 3) permit judgement of 'low risk' or 'high risk' Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Specific social or cultural characteristics: none Comment: method of concealment is not described. Insufficient information to permit judgement of 'low risk' or 'high risk' Socio-economic status context: low deprivation Blinding of outcome as-sessment (detection bias) Consumption outcome Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Consumption outcome Comment: the Selective reporting (re-Low risk Comment: no blinding of outcome assessment, but the review authors judge that the outcome measurement is not likely to be influenced by lack of blind-ing High risk porting bias) Unclear risk Comment: search for record(s) containing details of study protocol conduct-ed in ClinicalTrials.
Insufficient information to ing comparability of partic-ipant characteristics be-tween groups Other bias #2 -Consisten-cy in intervention delivery Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Consumption outcome Quote: "Selective reporting (re-permit judgement of 'low risk' or 'high risk' Low risk Low risk Unclear risk Comment: search for record(s) containing details of study protocol conduct- porting bias) ed in ClinicalTrials. gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Plat-Comment: information provided to participants appears to have been stan-form (ICTRP). No records found. Insufficient information to permit judgement dardised between the compared study conditions. No specific instructions were provided to participants and therefore monitoring of participants' fidelity Selection outcome analysed: N/A of 'low risk' or 'high risk' to protocol is not applicable Measurement of selection outcome: N/A Summary of risk of bias Consumption outcome Unclear risk Timing of selection outcome measurement: N/A Unclear risk Consumption outcome analysed: total daily energy intake (kcal) Measurement of consumption outcome: objective Devitt 2004 Timing of consumption outcome measurement: immediate (≤ 1 day) Methods Funding source Study design: within-subjects randomised controlled trial Not reported Participants Notes Setting: laboratory setting Outcome data for low energy density and high energy density participant subgroups collapsed and Geographical region: Purdue University, West Lafayette, Illinois, USA analysed together (one comparison) Risk of bias Number of enrolled participants: 26 adults Upon completion of the experiment, a funneled debriefing methodology was used.
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration. x 24 g wraps -1158 g total; 92 x 12 g pizzas -1110g total), high energy density; customary (larger) food unit size (4 x 311 g omelettes -1244 g total; 6 x 193 g wraps -1158 g total; 2 x 555 g pizzas -1110 g total), low energy density; customary (larger) food unit size (4 x 311 g omelettes -1244 g total; 6 x 193 g wraps -1158 g total; 2 x 555 g pizzas -1110g total), high energy density Number of comparisons analysed: 1Comparisons analysed: Intervention 1: small food unit size (96 x 13 g omelettes -1244 g total; 48 x 24 g wraps -1158 g total; 92 x 12 g pizzas -1110 g total); versus Intervention 2: customary (larger) food unit size (4 x 311 g omelettes -1244 g total; 6 x 193 g wraps -1158 g total; 2 x 555 g pizzas -1110 g total)Concurrent intervention components: yes.
4 +/-0. 4 g), with standard size one-half a tomato topped with pesto and standard size white bread roll with a butter packet; versus Intervention 2: 150% portion size pasta entrée (ziti pasta, canned diced tomatoes, four cheeses -ricotta, mozzarella, provolone and Ro- Cochrane Library Trusted evidence. Informed decisions. Better health. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Devitt 2004 (Continued) Exclusion criteria: had purchased the pasta entrée on a previous study day; has shared meal with an- other person Interventions Manipulated product type: food Manipulation: portion size Duration of exposure to intervention: ≤ 1 day Social setting: consuming with others Study arms: Summary of risk of bias Unclear risk Unclear risk Consumption outcome Methods Study design: between-subjects cluster-randomised controlled trial Unit of allocation: day of the week Unit of analysis: individual Number of clusters: 4 Number of participants per cluster: not reported Analysis does not appear to account for cluster allocation, as the statistical model does not appear to include any covariate related to cluster assignment Participants Setting: field setting, public cafeteria-style restaurant Geographical region: Pennsylvania State University campus, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA Number of enrolled participants: 180 adults Number (%) of enrolled participants completing the study: 180 (100%) Study completers -mean age (SD): 22.
6 (5. 8) Study completers -sex: male (55%) and female (45%) Study completers -mean BMI kg/m 2 (SD): 25. 3 (4. 3) Specific social or cultural characteristics: customers of a university campus public cafeteria-style restaurant Socio-economic status context: low deprivation Inclusion criteria: purchaser of the pasta entrée on a study day; willing to complete a short survey Diliberti 2004 Portion, package or tableware size for changing selection and consumption of food, alcohol and tobacco (Review) Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration. mano -heavy cream, fresh basil, garlic, salt and pepper mean cooked weight of 376. 6 +/-0. 6 g), with standard size one-half a tomato topped with pesto and standard size white bread roll with a butter packet Concurrent intervention components: no.
by lack of blinding of key study personnel Comparisons analysed: Intervention 1: child size dishware (7. 25 inch diameter plate with a surface area of 41. 26 inches 2 and an 8 ounce bowl); versus Intervention 2: adult size dishware (10. 25 inch diameter plate with a surface area of 82. 47 inches 2 and a 16 ounce bowl) Cochrane Library Trusted evidence. Informed decisions. Better health. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Number of clusters: 2 Number of participants per cluster: not reported Analysis appears to account for cluster allocation, as generalised estimating equations were used to evaluate effects Participants Setting: field setting, privately funded urban elementary school Geographical region: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA Number of enrolled participants: 43 children Number (%) of enrolled participants completing the study: 41 (98%) Study completers -mean age (SD): not reported Study completers -sex: male (39%) and female (61%) Study completers -mean BMI kg/m 2 (SD): 45% overweight or obese (neither BMI z score nor BMI per- centile were reported).
Blinding of outcome as- Low risk Comment: no blinding of outcome assessment, but the review authors judge sessment (detection bias) that the outcome measurement is not likely to be influenced by lack of blind- Consumption outcome ing Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Interventions Low risk Manipulated product type: food Comment: no missing outcome data for consumption outcome. Consumption outcome Manipulation: tableware size Selective reporting (re- Unclear risk Duration of exposure to intervention: ≤ 1 day Comment: search for record(s) containing details of study protocol conduct- porting bias) ed in ClinicalTrials. gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Plat- form (ICTRP). No records found. Insufficient information to permit judgement Social setting: selecting and consuming with others of 'low risk' or 'high risk' Study arms: child size dishware (7.
In each study condition] Children were told that they could make 1 trip through the buffet line, that they could serve themselves and eat as much or as little as they wanted, and they were not allowed to share food with other children. Children ate at their desks in their classrooms during a 15-minute timed meal. Research assistants were present to ensure that foods were not shared and to note any spilled or dropped foods. " DiSantis 2013 (Continued) Cochrane Library Funding source Notes Risk of bias Bias DiSantis 2013 (Continued) Cochrane Library Selective reporting (re-porting bias) Other bias #1 -Baseline comparability of partic-ipant characteristics be-tween groups Other bias #2 -Consisten-Library Interventions Quote: "[Cochrane Trusted evidence. Informed decisions. Better health. Consumption outcome analysed: energy intake from total lunch meal (kcal) Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Measurement of consumption outcome: objective Timing of consumption outcome measurement: immediate (≤ 1 day) US Department of Agriculture National Research Initiative (USDA NRI 2006-55215-05938) Author contacted to request information missing from the study report -requested information was supplied (February 2014) Trusted evidence.
Informed decisions. Better health. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Unclear risk Comment: search for record(s) containing details of study protocol conduct-ed in ClinicalTrials. gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Plat-form (ICTRP). No records found. Insufficient information to permit judgement of 'low risk' or 'high risk' Unclear risk Comment: study uses a within-subjects design. No measurement of partici-pant pre-condition 'state' characteristics is reported. No analysis of potential differences in measured outcomes between condition orders appears to have been conducted and the statistical analysis of outcome data does not appear to control for condition order. Risk of bias due to period effects is therefore un-clear. Insufficient information to permit judgement of 'low risk' or 'high risk' Unclear risk Trusted evidence.
Informed decisions. Better health. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Inclusion criteria: aged between 13 and 17 years; self reported consumer of fast food at least once per week; BMI values exceeding gender and age-specific 80th percentile values Exclusion criteria: self reported diagnosis of major medical illness; self reported diagnosis of eating dis-order; self reported smoking ≥ 1 cigarette in the past week; self report taking any prescription medica-tion that may affect food intake Manipulated product type: food Manipulation: package size Duration of exposure to intervention: ≤ 1 day Social setting: consuming with others Authors' judgement Support for judgement cy in intervention delivery Study arms: fast food meal presented as 1 large serving (on a tray) at a single time point; fast food meal Random sequence genera- Unclear risk presented as portioned into 4 smaller servings (divided equally among a tray and 3 lunch boxes) pre-Comment: method of sequence generation for condition order is not de- tion (selection bias) scribed.
The assignments were prepared on index cards by the study statistician and were delivered in opaque envelopes to the principal investigator, to be opened after each participant's baseline assessment visit. " Cochrane Library Trusted evidence. Informed decisions. Better health. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Ebbeling 2007 (Continued) Allocation concealment (selection bias) Quote: "Blinding of participants Low risk Unclear risk Quote: "At the time of recruitment. We did not mention strategies for altering and personnel (perfor- portion sizes and eating rate. " Comment: no blinding or incomplete blinding mance bias) of study participants. Not reported whether participants were probed for sus- Consumption outcome picion of study purpose or awareness of size manipulation between study con- ditions.
The low proportion (two participants, 10% of study sample) of exclusions means that the review authors judge that the plausible effect size among miss- ing outcomes is unlikely to be enough to have an important impact on the ob- served effect size Selective reporting (re- Low risk Comment: search for record(s) containing details of study protocol conducted porting bias) in ClinicalTrials. gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). Record found in ClinicalTrials. gov (Identifier: NCT00121706). Compari- son of ClinicalTrials. gov record with published study report indicates no selec- tive outcome reporting Other bias #1 -Baseline comparability of partic- ipant characteristics be- tween groups.
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews ask. Keep your packaging on your tray. " Research sta members monitored food intake discreetly. We collected dietary and physical activity data during telephone-administered, 24-hour recall interviews, by calling each subject on the 2 days after each of the 3 test visits to assess behaviors during the day of the visit and the day after the visit. " Cochrane Library Cochrane Library Trusted evidence. Informed decisions. Better health. Trusted evidence. Informed decisions. Better health. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Ebbeling 2007 (Continued) Study arms: age-appropriate size reference portion of macaroni and cheese entrée (125 g for younger children; 175 g for older children); large size portion of macaroni and cheese entrée (250 g for younger children; 350 g for older children) Number of comparisons analysed: 1 Comparisons analysed: Intervention 1: age-appropriate size reference portion of macaroni and cheese Comment: information and instructions to participants appear to have been entrée (125 g for younger children; 175 g for older children); versus Intervention 2: large size portion of standardised between the compared study conditions.
Cochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsComment: reason for missing outcome data is likely to be related to consumption outcome but inclusion could plausibly have biased the estimate of the effect of the intervention on consumption. The review authors judge that the decision to exclude this participant is reasonable, as it is likely to protect against bias in the estimate of the effect of the intervention on consumption Cochrane Library Trusted evidence. Informed decisions. Better health. Fisher 2007a (Continued) Selective reporting (re- Unclear risk Comment: search for record(s) containing details of study protocol conduct- porting bias) ed in ClinicalTrials. gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Plat- form (ICTRP). No records found. Insufficient information to permit judgement of 'low risk' or 'high risk' Other bias #1 -Baseline Low risk Quote: "Potential correlates of changes in food and total energy intake were comparability of partic- tested cojointly by analysis of variance: sex, ethnicity, condition order, BMI (z ipant characteristics be- scores used for children), and food insecurity.
" tween groups Comment: study uses a within-subjects design. No measurement of partici- pant pre-condition 'state' characteristics is reported. However, the statistical analysis appears to control for the potential influence of condition order on measured outcomes. It is therefore unlikely that any differences between con- dition orders in terms of unmeasured pre-condition participant 'state' charac- teristics influenced the measured outcomes. Risk of bias due to period effects is therefore judged low Other bias #2 -Consisten- cy in intervention delivery Portion, package or tableware size for changing selection and consumption of food, alcohol and tobacco (Review) Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.
Risk of bias Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement Cochrane Library Trusted evidence. Informed decisions. Better health. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Fisher 2007c (Continued) Social setting: selecting and consuming with others Study arms: small portion (275 g) macaroni and cheese entrée, teaspoon; small portion (275 g) maca- roni and cheese entrée, tablespoon; large portion (550 g) macaroni and cheese entrée, teaspoon; large portion (550 g) macaroni and cheese entrée, tablespoon Number of comparisons analysed: 2 Comparisons analysed: comparison 1: Intervention 1: small portion (275 g) macaroni and cheese en- trée; versus Intervention 2: large portion (550 g) macaroni and cheese entrée; Comparison 2: Interven- tion 1: teaspoon; versus Intervention 2: tablespoon Concurrent intervention components: no Outcomes Outcomes reported in study: amount of entrée self served (grams); number of spoonfuls of entrée self served (N); average (mean) grams per spoonful self served (grams); energy intake from total dinner meal (kcal); amount of food consumed from total dinner meal (grams); energy intake from macaroni and cheese entrée (kcal); amount of macaroni and cheese entrée consumed (grams); energy intake from other (non-entrée) meal components (foods) (kcal); amount of other (non-entrée) meal compo- nents (foods) consumed (grams) Selection outcome analysed: amount of entrée self served (grams) Measurement of selection outcome: objective Timing of selection outcome measurement: immediate (≤ 1 day) Consumption outcome analysed: N/A -no usable outcome data (energy intake from total dinner meal (kcal)) Measurement of consumption outcome: N/A -no usable outcome data (energy intake from total din- ner meal (kcal)) Timing of consumption outcome measurement: N/A -no usable outcome data (energy intake from to- tal dinner meal (kcal)) Funding source US Department of Agriculture Grant (NRI 2006-55215-16694); US Department of Agriculture CRIS funds Notes Outcome data (selection) relating to portion size manipulation and tableware size manipulation analysed separately (one comparison each).
The latter 2 reasons are per protocol. Reasons for dropout are not provided. A fourth reason for missing outcome data is the study authors' decision to ex- clude participants with zero consumption in ≥ 2 of the 4 conditions from the analysis. The substantial proportion (11 participants, 14% of study sample) of exclusions due to zero consumption means that the review authors judge that it is plausible that the effect size among these missing data is enough to have had an important impact on the observed effect size Selective reporting (re- Unclear risk Comment: search for record(s) containing details of study protocol conduct- porting bias) ed in ClinicalTrials. gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Plat- form (ICTRP). No records found. Insufficient information to permit judgement of 'low risk' or 'high risk' Other bias #1 -Baseline Low risk Quote: "Time by condition interactions were estimated as random effects.
Cochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsInclusion criteria: aged between18 and 45 years; regularly consumes 3 meals a day; reported liking of both regular and diet soda; BMI 18 to 40; scored < 40 on the Zung Questionnaire (measure of depression); scored < 20 on the Eating Attitudes Test (measures attitudes toward food and eating) Cochrane Library Trusted evidence. Informed decisions. Better health. Fisher 2013 (Continued) Exclusion criteria: taking medications that are known to affect appetite or food intake; smoker; dieting to gain or lose weight; athlete in training; pregnant or breastfeeding; food allergies; food restrictions Interventions Manipulated product type: food Manipulation: portion size Duration of exposure to intervention: ≤ 1 day Social setting: consuming alone Summary of risk of bias Unclear risk Unclear risk Selection outcome Summary of risk of bias Unclear risk Unclear risk Consumption outcome Flood 2006 Methods Study design: within-subjects randomised controlled trial Participants Setting: laboratory setting Geographical region: Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA Number of enrolled participants: 40 adults Number (%) of enrolled participants completing the study: 33 (83%) Study completers -mean age (SD): 22.