dataesr/scientific-paragraphs-categorization huggingface dataset:
Library Trusted evidence. Informed decisions. Better health. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews on both the standard and large portion conditions for all meals. In the women 62% reported the portions were 'just about right' on the standard portion condition but 74% reported that they would have been 'satisfied with smaller' on the large portion condition. Despite this, the women still consumed more food and increased their EI by 10% under the large portion condition. " Comment: blinding of study participants attempted but it is possible that blinding was broken in some cases. Not reported whether participants were probed for suspicion of study purpose or awareness of size manipulation between study conditions. It is possible that the outcome may be influenced by lack of blinding of study participants (due to potential carry-over effects between conditions).
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Consumption outcome Low risk Quote: "One subject did not comply with the study protocol and was excluded. " Comment: the nature of the participant's failure to comply with the study protocol is not provided, so it is unclear whether the reason for this exclusion is likely to be related to the study outcome or not. The low proportion (one participant, 2% of study sample) of exclusions due to outliers means that the review authors judge that the plausible effect size among missing outcomes is unlikely to be enough to have an important impact on the observed effect size Selective reporting (reporting bias) Unclear risk Comment: search for record(s) containing details of study protocol conducted in ClinicalTrials. gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP).
Library Trusted evidence. Informed decisions. Better health. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and their partner, eating with friend (partner); large plate size (23. 5 cm diameter; 433. 7 cm 2 surface area), 2 smaller serving bowls placed in front of (i) participant and (ii) their partner, eating with friend (partner); large plate size (23. 5 cm diameter; 433. 7 cm 2 surface area), 2 smaller serving bowls placed in front of (i) participant and (ii) their partner, eating with stranger (partner).
Following their assignment to the friend or stranger condition, participants were informed that they would first complete a Pre-Meal Questionnaire, followed by the first section of a cognitive test in their food-deprived states. After the test, they would have a meal of pasta. Following the meal, they would complete a Post-Meal Questionnaire. Finally, they would complete a second version of the same cognitive test. They were also told that this entire process would be con- Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews ducted with the friend/stranger with whom they had been paired. Because the true purpose of the study was to examine eating behavior and not cognitive performance, the first cognitive test was a bogus test and the second cognitive test never occurred. Once [participants] had completed [the Post-Meal Questionnaire, the experiment was over, and they were fully debriefed.
The results. can be easily summarized for the amount of food taken dependent variable; the data reveal the same pattern of significant and nearly significant effects as in the original analyses without covariates. " Comment: study uses a between-subjects design. Evidence of difference between comparison groups in terms of baseline hunger level. However, this difference did not influence measured outcomes (selection and consumption outcomes). No evidence of differences between comparison groups in terms of other measured baseline participant characteristics. Risk of bias due to baseline imbalances between comparison groups is therefore judged low Other bias #2 -Consistency in intervention delivery Unclear risk Quote: "All participants were asked to refrain from eating for 3 h before their scheduled session as they would be eating a meal during the study.
Library Trusted evidence. Informed decisions. Better health. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews they noticed changes in portion size of the lunch entrée; 2 subjects thought incorrectly that the portion sizes at dinner had also changed. Eight subjects reported noticing changes in the composition of the pasta bake, and 3 subjects reported noticing differences in the taste and flavoring of the pasta bake. Ten subjects (26%) did not report noticing any differences between their test days. The effect of portion size and energy density on energy intake was the same regardless of whether the subjects noticed portion-size differences in the lunch entrée. The subjects' ratings of portion size in relation to their usual portion indicated that they did notice differences in the size of the entrées.
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. The first reason for missing outcome data for consumption outcome is the study authors' decision to exclude participants with consumption ≤ 99 g from the analysis. The low proportion (1 participant, 2% of study sample) of exclusions due to low consumption means that the review authors judge that the plausible effect size among missing outcomes is unlikely to be enough to have an important impact on the observed effect size Selective reporting (reporting bias) Unclear risk Comment: search for record(s) containing details of study protocol conducted in ClinicalTrials. gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP).
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Exclusion criteria: serious medical conditions known to affect food intake and body weight; any developmental, medical or psychiatric conditions that might impact study compliance; any food allergies; taking medications known to affect food intake or body weight Study arms: small size fruit and vegetable portions (75 g broccoli served plain without any butter or seasoning, 75 g carrots served plain without any butter or seasoning and 310 g pasta with tomato sauce, served on a 10¼-inch diameter 3-compartment plate; 122 g unsweetened applesauce served in a 12 oz bowl; and 244 g 2% fat milk served in a 300 ml transparent cup with a lid and straw); large size fruit and vegetable portions (150 g broccoli served plain without any butter or seasoning, 150 g carrots served plain without any butter or seasoning and 310 g pasta with tomato sauce, served on a 10¼-inch diameter 3-compartment plate; 244 g unsweetened applesauce served in a 12 oz bowl; and 244 g 2% fat milk served in a 300 ml transparent cup with a lid and straw).
Outcomes Outcomes reported in study: energy intake from 3 fruit and vegetable side dishes (kcal); energy intake from broccoli (kcal); energy intake from carrots (kcal); energy intake from applesauce (kcal); energy intake from pasta entrée (kcal); energy intake from 2% fat milk (kcal); total energy intake from dinner meal (kcal); amount of 3 fruit and vegetable side dishes consumed (grams); amount of broccoli consumed (grams); amount of carrots consumed (grams); amount of applesauce consumed (grams); amount of pasta entrée consumed (grams); amount of 2% milk consumed (grams); total amount consumed from dinner meal (grams); overall energy density of foods consumed at dinner meal (kcal per Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) Consumption outcome Low risk Quote: "The experiment was conducted during an unrelated computerized experiment (decision-making task about four objects after sequential information presentation). Participants were seated in individual cubicles. Participants were told that the candies were offered for free consumption in recognition for their participation and that they could eat as much as they wanted. After the conclusion of the experiment, participants were given a questionnaire in which they were told that the candies were actually part of an experiment about eating habits. To avoid cueing participants to the issue of food intake, consumption was not experimentally induced nor were pre-meal hunger ratings assessed.
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Number of comparisons analysed: 1 Comparisons analysed: Intervention 1: small size cookies -36 half-sized cookies, 126 g total, 3. 5 g each, 3. 7 cm long (1. 45 in), 2. 3 cm wide (0. 9 in) and 1. 1 cm high (0. 4 in), rectangular and consisting of several layers of wafers filled with milk chocolate topping;versus Intervention 2: large size cookies -18 fullsized cookies, 126 g total, 7. 0 g each, 7. 4 cm long (2. 9 in), 2. 3 cm wide (0. 9 in) and 1. 1 cm high (0. Low risk Comment: participating small groups of children appear to have been randomised to condition order concurrently, after consent for individuals' participation had been obtained. The review authors therefore judge that any lack of concealment of allocation sequence is unlikely to be an issue for risk of bias.
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) Consumption outcome Unclear risk Quote: "The subjects were not informed of the actual purpose of the study but were told that the purpose was to examine the effects of lunch on taste. Subjects completed a discharge questionnaire at the end of the study, which asked what they thought was the purpose of the study, whether there were any factors that affected their responses, and whether they noticed any differences between the test days. Most subjects (94%) did not correctly report the purpose of the study. Three subjects (2 from the plate group and 1 from the serving dish group), however, correctly reported that the purpose of the study was to investigate whether the amount of food that was offered affected the amount that they ate.
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 unclear. Insufficient information to permit judgement of 'low risk' or 'high risk' Other bias #2 -Consistency in intervention delivery Low risk Quote: "Subjects were asked to keep their evening meal and their activity level as similar as possible on the day before each test day and to refrain from eating or drinking (except water) after 2200. Subjects were also asked to refrain from drinking alcohol on the day before and throughout each test day and to Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews eat a similar breakfast on the morning of each test day.
Whilst no monitoring results are reported with respect to these instructions, it is reported that participants who failed to comply were rescheduled for another test day. No further specific instructions were provided to participants, other than the instructions to eat as much or as little of the macaroni and cheese as desired and to drink as much or as little of the water as desired Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews ported more general purposes and four subjects reported that they did not know the aim of the study. All subjects except two reported that the package size of the snack varied across test days. " Comment: no blinding or incomplete blinding. Participants were probed for suspicion of study purpose and awareness of size manipulation between study conditions. It appears that blinding of study participants was broken in the majority of cases and it is possible that the outcome may be influenced by lack of blinding (due to potential carry-over effects between conditions).
The low proportion (3 participants, 4% of study sample) of exclusions due to low consumption means that the review authors judge that the plausible effect size among missing outcomes is unlikely to be enough to have an important impact on the observed effect size Selective reporting (reporting bias) Unclear risk Comment: search for record(s) containing details of study protocol conducted in ClinicalTrials. gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). No records found. Insufficient information to permit judgement of 'low risk' or 'high risk' Other bias #1 -Baseline comparability of participant characteristics between groups Unclear risk Quote: "At the snack session, subjects rated characteristics of the potato chips using visual analog scales. Immediately after the snack was served, subjects were asked to open the package, take one bite of the snack, and complete ratings for pleasantness of taste.
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Consumption outcome discharge about differences between the study sessions, 14 of the 24 women (58%) reported that portion sizes changed across the weeks. Five women (21%) correctly discerned that a purpose of the study was to test the effect of portion size on food intake, and 3 women (13%) correctly discerned that a purpose was to test the effect of energy content on intake. Only one subject correctly discerned both of these purposes. The effect of food portion size and energy density on total energy intake was still significant (P < 0. 0001) after excluding the subjects who discerned either of the purposes of the study. " Comment: no blinding or incomplete blinding. Participants were probed for suspicion of study purpose and awareness of size manipulation between study conditions.
No further specific instructions were provided to participants, other than the instructions to serve the test food from the dish onto the plate as often as they wanted, and to eat as much as they wanted from the plate Cochrane Library Trusted evidence. Informed decisions. Better health. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) Consumption outcome Unclear risk Quote: "The subjects were blinded to the study objective. Another concern is that the subject may have guessed the objective of the study because the study was conducted in a laboratory setting. This is unlikely to have occurred, however, because questioning the subjects after the study completion did not reveal any awareness of the study objective. " Comment: no blinding or incomplete blinding.
ti,ab. 123754 18 ((siz$ or dimension$ or capacit$ or volume$ or shap$ or height$ or width$ or length$ or depth$ or divide$) adj6 (portion$ or serving$ or product$ or packag$ or packet$ or unit$ or cigar$ or food$ or drink$ or alcohol$ or tableware or drinkware or dinnerware or crockery or plate$1 or platter$1 or tureen$1 or tajine$1 or tagine$1 or bowl$1 or charger$1 or cup$1 or saucer$1 or glass or glasses or mug or mugs or beaker$1 or pitcher$1 or jug$1 or decanter$1 or receptacle$1 or container$1 or dish$ or pot or pots or cutlery or flatware or utensil$1 or knife or $knife or knives or fork$1 or spoon$ or $spoon or tongs or ladle$1 or chopstick$1 or box$ or bag$ or can$ or carton$1 or bottle $ or straw$1)). ti,ab. 24137  Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews row of Table  A2. 2 shows the provisional result from a preliminary meta-analysis that integrates outcome data from an additional 1591 participants (15 independent comparisons); a combined total N of 9785 participants (101 independent comparisons).
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews With respect to risk of bias, we already rated current evidence (86 independent comparisons) down by one level (i. e. serious limitations) due to all study-level estimates of this e ect having been judged to be at 'unclear or high risk of bias'. Therefore, even in the extreme hypothetical scenarios that all further eligible studies are in due course judged to be either at 'low' or 'unclear' or 'high' risk of bias with respect to their study-level estimates of this e ect, integration of these assessments (with respect to 16 further independent comparisons) cannot change the current rating (i. e. serious limitations). With respect to inconsistency, we did not rate down current evidence (86 independent comparisons) based on our judgement that large inconsistency (heterogeneity) in study results did not remain a er exploration of a priori hypotheses that might explain heterogeneity (i.
In summary, our review of quality of evidence ratings establishes that full integration of 10 further eligible studies accepted into the review and currently awaiting full integration that measured the consumption outcome cannot change the overall quality of evidence rating with respect to the provisionally updated estimate of the summary e ect size for (  1 ) the e ect of exposure to larger versus smaller-sized portions, packages or tableware on quantities of food consumed. Table  A2. 5 summarises the results of our quality of evidence ratings with respect to current and provisionally updated estimates of the summary e ect size for (  2 ) the e ect of exposure to larger versus smaller-sized portions, packages or tableware on quantities of food selected. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Identical considerations to those described above in the case of the e ect on consumption apply here with respect to ratings of risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision and other considerations that collectively determine confidence in estimates of the e ect of exposure to larger versus smaller size on food selection.
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration. analysed: 3 (children aged 2 to 3 years = 1; children aged 5 to 6 years = 1; children aged 8 to 9 years = 1) Comparisons analysed: children aged 2 to 3 years = Intervention 1: small size portion (200 g) macaroni and cheese entrée; versus Intervention 2: large size portion (400 g) macaroni and cheese entrée; children aged 5 to 6 years = Intervention 1: small size portion (250 g) macaroni and cheese entrée; versus Intervention2: large size portion (500 g) macaroni and cheese entrée; children aged 8 to 9 years = Intervention 1: small size portion (450 g) macaroni and cheese entrée; versus Intervention 2: large size portion (900 g) macaroni and cheese entrée Concurrent intervention components: no Outcomes Outcomes reported in study: all age groups: energy intake from total dinner meal (kcal); energy intake from macaroni and cheese entrée (kcal); energy intake from other (non-entrée) dinner meal components (foods) (kcal); bite frequency from total dinner meal (n); average (mean) bite size from total dinner meal (grams per bite) Selection outcome analysed: N/A Measurement of selection outcome: N/A Timing of selection outcome measurement: N/A Consumption outcome analysed: energy intake from total dinner meal (kcal) Measurement of consumption outcome: objective Timing of consumption outcome measurement: immediate (≤ 1 day) Funding source North American International Life Sciences Association Committee on Lifestyle and Weight Management Notes Outcome data for children aged 2 to 3 years, children aged 5 to 6 years and children aged 8 to 9 years analysed separately (one comparison each) because the absolute difference in portion size between reference size and large size portion conditions varied between age groups.
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. Intervention 1: 500 g portion Italian pasta bake lunch entrée;versus Intervention 2: 700 g portion Italian pasta bake lunch entrée. Comparison 2 -Intervention 1: 700 g portion Italian pasta bake lunch entrée; versus Intervention 2: 900 g portion Italian pasta bake lunch entrée Concurrent intervention components: no.
outcome analysed: N/A Measurement of selection outcome: N/A Timing of selection outcome measurement: N/A Consumption outcome analysed: energy intake from total lunch meal (kcal) Measurement of consumption outcome: objective Timing of consumption outcome measurement: immediate (≤ lower energy density and higher energy density participant subgroups collapsed and analysed together (one comparison). Increments only analysed. Author contacted to request information missing from the study report -requested information was supplied (February 2014) Levitsky 2004 (Continued) 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.
of enrolled participants completing the study: 33 (61%) Study completers -mean age (SD): 20. 3 (2. 0) Study completers -sex: male (12%) and female (88%) Marchiori 2011 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. mean BMI kg/m 2 (SD): 21. 7 (3. 7) Specific social or cultural characteristics: undergraduate university psychology students Socio-economic status context: low deprivation Inclusion criteria: undergraduate psychology student Exclusion criteria: presence of food allergies; weight problems; overweight (BMI > 25); dieting behaviour; personal food intake control in order to gain or lose weight Interventions Manipulated product type: food Manipulation: individual unit size Duration of exposure to intervention: ≤ 1 day Social setting: consuming alone Study arms: 90 g half-size candies (sweets), comprising 20 half-size (2 g) cherry-shaped gummy candies and 20 half-size (2.
S1) (Continued) 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. oz bag potato chips, 1 7. 2-oz bag crackers, 1 8-oz bag cookies, 1 9. 4-oz bag candies); large portion-small package (10 1-oz bags potato chips, 9 1. 5-oz bags crackers, 12 1. 25-oz cookies, 11 1. 7-oz bags candies); large portion-large package (2 5-oz bags potato chips, 2 7. 2-oz bags crackers, 2 8-oz bags cookies, 2 9. 4-oz bags candies) Number of comparisons analysed: 2 (portion size; package size) Comparisons analysed: comparison 1 (portion) = Intervention 1: small portion of 4 snack foods (5 1-oz bags potato chips, 5 1.
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews portion and package sizes cost less in relative (and sometimes absolute) monetary terms than smaller sizes and thus o er more value for money to consumers (Steenhuis 2009) and restricting price promotions on larger-sized packages. There is limited and equivocal evidence for the e ectiveness of interventions that do not seek to directly alter the availability or cost of larger sizes, but instead aim to educate people about appropriate portion sizes -for example, by providing information about the portion size e ect or the number of portions in a serving(Cavanagh 2013;  Spanos 2015; Versluis 2015). This does not, however, rule out a potential role for social marketing campaigns to raise awareness and engender public acceptability of the public health case for interventions to reduce or moderate the e ects of exposure to larger-sized portions of food and drink.