These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Adolescent athletes have better general than sports nutrition knowledge and lack awareness of supplement recommendations: a systematic literature review.
    Author: Hulland SC, Trakman GL, Alcock RD.
    Journal: Br J Nutr; 2024 Apr 28; 131(8):1362-1376. PubMed ID: 38053387.
    Abstract:
    Nutrition knowledge (NK) impacts food choices and may be improved through educational programmes. Identifying knowledge gaps related to NK among adolescent athletes may guide future nutrition education programmes. This review aimed to systematically review the level of NK in adolescent athletes based on the currently available published literature. The protocol for this review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022321765). A literature search was conducted in April 2022 using MEDLINE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science and SCOPUS databases. The study design was not restricted, provided that a quantitative NK score was reported for adolescent athletes. Studies were limited to the English language and published between 2010 and April 2022. Studies were assessed for quality and risk of bias using the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Quality Appraisal Checklist. Data extracted included demographics, questionnaire name, number of items, validation status and mean total and subsection NK scores. Meta-analyses were inappropriate due to the heterogeneity of NK assessment tools; therefore, results were presented narratively. Thirty-two studies that assessed NK of 4553 adolescent athletes and 574 comparison participants were included. Critical appraisal of studies resulted in neutral rating 'moderate quality' for most (n 30) studies. Studies lacked justification for sample size and often used inadequately validated questionnaires. NK scores ranged from poor (33·3 %) to excellent (90·6 %). The level of NK across studies is difficult to determine due to heterogenous questionnaires often lacking appropriate validation. NK should be assessed using tools validated in the relevant population or revalidated tools previously used for other populations.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]