| Title |
Fatty fish intake and cognitive function: FINS-KIDS, a randomized controlled trial in preschool children
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12916-018-1020-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jannike Øyen, Ingrid Kvestad, Lisa Kolden Midtbø, Ingvild Eide Graff, Mari Hysing, Kjell Morten Stormark, Maria Wik Markhus, Valborg Baste, Livar Frøyland, Berthold Koletzko, Hans Demmelmair, Lisbeth Dahl, Øyvind Lie, Marian Kjellevold |
| Abstract |
Marine resources including fatty fish are important sources of n-3 long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (n-3 LC-PUFAs), which are important for brain development. To our knowledge, this is the first randomized controlled trial (RCT) investigating the impact of fatty fish on cognition in preschool children. The purpose of the trial was to investigate whether an increased intake of fatty fish compared to meat improves cognitive function in children 4-6 years old. The children (n = 232) in this two-armed RCT, Fish Intervention Studies-KIDS (FINS-KIDS) were recruited from 13 kindergartens in Bergen, Norway. They were randomly assigned to lunch meals with fatty fish (herring/mackerel) or meat (chicken/lamb/beef) three times a week for 16 weeks. The fish and meat were weighed before and after the meals to record the exact consumption (dietary compliance). The primary outcome was cognitive function measured by the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence, 3rd edition (WPPSI-III) and fine-motor coordination measured by the 9-Hole Peg Test (9-HPT) at pre- and post-intervention. Biological samples (blood, urine, hair), and questionnaires to the caregivers were included at both time points. Linear mixed effect models with a random intercept for kindergarten were used to analyze changes from pre- to post-intervention in the primary outcome variables. There were 218 children included in the trial (105 in the fish, and 113 in the meat group). The children consumed a mean (standard deviation) of 2070 (978) g fish or 2675 (850) g meat from the study meals (p < 0.0001). The fish group had a significant increase of red blood cell n-3 LC-PUFAs. The intervention had no effect on the WPPSI-III scores (mean change total raw score; fish group 17.7, 95% confidence interval (CI) 14.8-20.7 vs meat group 17.8, 95% CI 15.0-20.6, p = 0.97) in the main analyses. In the sub-analyses, adjusting for dietary compliance, the fish group showed a higher improvement on total raw score (20.4, 95% CI 17.5-23.3) compared to the meat group (15.2, 95% CI 12.4-18.0, p = 0.0060); docosahexaenoic acid mediated this effect. There was no beneficial effect of fatty fish compared to meat on cognitive functioning in the preschool children. When considering dietary compliance, we found a beneficial effect of fatty fish on cognitive scores. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02331667 December 17, 2014. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 17% |
| Australia | 3 | 13% |
| Norway | 2 | 8% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 8% |
| Sweden | 1 | 4% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 4% |
| Canada | 1 | 4% |
| Japan | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 9 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 17 | 71% |
| Scientists | 6 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 146 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 146 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 24 | 16% |
| Researcher | 19 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 5% |
| Other | 11 | 8% |
| Unknown | 60 | 41% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 16% |
| Psychology | 11 | 8% |
| Neuroscience | 8 | 5% |
| Sports and Recreations | 7 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 4% |
| Other | 26 | 18% |
| Unknown | 65 | 45% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 September 2021.
All research outputs
#2,138,272
of 25,002,811 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,450
of 3,911 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,962
of 338,394 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#27
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,002,811 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,911 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 338,394 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.