Question · asked by 1 review
Food marketing exposure or greater marketing power vs No, less, or less powerful food marketing: Food preference
- 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 preference
In crossover studies with binary outcomes, food marketing increased food preference (OR 3.49, 95% CI 2.03 to 6.22; ungraded).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Food marketing exposure or greater marketing power vs No marketing, less marketing, or less powerful marketing Food preference · Children and adolescents aged 0-19 years · Crossover designs with binary outcomes In crossover studies with binary outcomes, food marketing increased food preference (OR 3.49, 95% CI 2.03 to 6.22; ungraded). Association of Food and Nonalcoholic Beverage Marketing With Children and Adolescents' Eating Behaviors and… (2022) All outcomes | OR 3.49 [2.03, 6.22] | 4 studies | GRADE not reported |
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 |
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.