Skip to main content

Table 1 Inclusion and exclusion criteria

From: Systematic review of the impact of nutrition claims related to fat, sugar and energy content on food choices and energy intake

Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria
Publication period: January 2003–April 2018 Other types of nutrition labelling without the presence of nutrition claims e.g. BOP labelling systems (e.g. nutrition panels), FOP labelling systems (e.g. traffic light nutrition labelling, Health Star Rating system, warning labels), FOP symbols or endorsement schemes (e.g. green Swedish Keyhole symbol, Australian/New Zealand National Heart Foundation Tick)
Language: English Health claims (e.g. “Calcium helps build strong bones”, “Diets containing an increased amount of both fruit and vegetables reduces risk of coronary heart disease”)
Food choices (e.g. purchases, consumption) relating to the influence of nutrition claims Non-nutritional aspects of labelling (e.g. colour and size of the nutrition claim or package)
Nutrition claims on packaged food (e.g. “low in sugar” on a box of cereal, “0% fat” on a pot of yoghurt) Menu labelling (e.g. nutrition information on restaurant menu boards)
Nutrition claims relating to fat, sugar, and energy content (e.g. “low-fat”, “reduced-fat”, “25% less sugar”, “less calories”) Food service
Target population: 18+ y/o Product development and/or reformulation by manufacturers (e.g. reducing sugar content of a food product)
Study designs: all Nutrition claims on beverages
Study outcomes: taste perceptions, nutrition knowledge, purchases, consumption, body weight  
  1. BOP back-of-pack, FOP front-of-pack, y/o years old