Question · asked by 1 review

Food marketing exposure or greater marketing power vs No, less, or less powerful food marketing: Food choice

Population
Children and adolescents (general population, aged under 20 years)
Intervention
Food marketing exposure or greater marketing power
Comparison
No, less, or less powerful food marketing
Outcome
Food choice

In crossover studies with binary outcomes, food marketing had no clear association with food choice (OR 3.45, 95% CI 0.97 to 12.43; ungraded).

What each review found

Include earlier review versions
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
Food marketing exposure or greater marketing power vs No marketing, less marketing, or less powerful marketing
Food choice · Children and adolescents aged 0-19 years · Crossover designs with binary outcomes
In crossover studies with binary outcomes, food marketing had no clear association with food choice (OR 3.45, 95% CI 0.97 to 12.43; ungraded).
Association of Food and Nonalcoholic Beverage Marketing With Children and Adolescents' Eating Behaviors and… (2022) All outcomes
OR 3.45 [0.97, 12.43]3 studiesGRADE not reported

Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
Association of Food and Nonalcoholic Beverage Marketing With Children and Adolescents' Eating Behaviors and Health: A Systematic Review…
2022 All outcomes
March 2020 (updated; initial search April 2019)92Not applicable
How reviews are matched to this question

Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.