Food and nonalcoholic beverage marketing (exposure) vs No, less, or less powerful food marketing: Purchase requests
Nonrandomized evidence on purchase requests is very uncertain (very low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Food and nonalcoholic beverage marketing (exposure) vs No, less, or less powerful food marketing Purchase requests · Children and adolescents aged 0-19 years · Predominantly high-income countries, Nonrandomized studies Nonrandomized evidence on purchase requests is very uncertain (very low certainty). Association of Food and Nonalcoholic Beverage Marketing With Children and Adolescents' Eating Behaviors and… (2022) All outcomes | A single observational study contributed to the combination-of-P-values analysis for purchase requests. | 1 study | Very low |
Food and nonalcoholic beverage marketing (exposure) vs No, less, or less powerful food marketing Purchase requests · Children and adolescents aged 0-19 years · Predominantly high-income countries, Randomized trials Food marketing is probably associated with increased purchase requests (moderate certainty, RCTs). Association of Food and Nonalcoholic Beverage Marketing With Children and Adolescents' Eating Behaviors and… (2022) All outcomes | Combination of P values statistically significant in both model iterations, indicating evidence of an association of food marketing with purchase requests. | 5 studies | Moderate |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 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) | 92 | Not applicable |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
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.