Question · asked by 1 review
'Summary of findings' table for primary outcomes: Taxation of sugar‐added foods vs no taxation: Mean expenditure on taxed sugar‐added foods
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
'Summary of findings' table for secondary outcomes: Taxation of sugar‐added foods vs no taxation Mean expenditure on taxed sugar‐added foods · general population Taxation of unprocessed sugar or sugar‐added foods for reducing their consumption and preventing obesity or… (2020) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 40210 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Taxation of unprocessed sugar or sugar‐added foods for reducing their consumption and preventing obesity or other adverse health outcomes 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
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.