Theis is a letter to the Editor, in which we reported the need of a clear definition of “snacking” and “snack” , which are not uniquely defined. According to this, a clear definition of “snack” is expected to appear and to be clearly identifiable in the material and methods section of the papers. Nevertheless, a simple PubMED (www.pubmed.gov) search of the words “snack*” and “obes*,” limited to papers about children from infancy to age 18 years, published in English from April 2003 to April 2006, found 55 references (52 were found in the University Library and not referred here for reason of brevity). Twenty-two (42.3%) of the 52 gave a clear and univocal definition of “snack” according to one of the above mentioned concepts. Four papers (7.6%) gave incomplete definitions based on examples, and the remaining 26 papers (50%) were not defining the “snack” concept at all. Leaving such a key concept undefined and merely understood by a common, a priori idea seems to be inappropriate in epidemiological and nutritional research and may affect the accuracy of the information offered as well as the validity of the conclusions proposed. We believe that, while waiting for a consensus to be reached among scientists, a strict definition of snack should always be provided in the articles.
Snacking and obesity: urgency of a definition to explore such a relationship.
MAFFEIS, Claudio
2007-01-01
Abstract
Theis is a letter to the Editor, in which we reported the need of a clear definition of “snacking” and “snack” , which are not uniquely defined. According to this, a clear definition of “snack” is expected to appear and to be clearly identifiable in the material and methods section of the papers. Nevertheless, a simple PubMED (www.pubmed.gov) search of the words “snack*” and “obes*,” limited to papers about children from infancy to age 18 years, published in English from April 2003 to April 2006, found 55 references (52 were found in the University Library and not referred here for reason of brevity). Twenty-two (42.3%) of the 52 gave a clear and univocal definition of “snack” according to one of the above mentioned concepts. Four papers (7.6%) gave incomplete definitions based on examples, and the remaining 26 papers (50%) were not defining the “snack” concept at all. Leaving such a key concept undefined and merely understood by a common, a priori idea seems to be inappropriate in epidemiological and nutritional research and may affect the accuracy of the information offered as well as the validity of the conclusions proposed. We believe that, while waiting for a consensus to be reached among scientists, a strict definition of snack should always be provided in the articles.
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
