↓ Skip to main content

The Nutritional Quality of Gluten-Free Products for Children

Overview of attention for article published in Pediatrics, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
34 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
90 tweeters
facebook
8 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Nutritional Quality of Gluten-Free Products for Children
Published in
Pediatrics, August 2018
DOI 10.1542/peds.2018-0525
Pubmed ID
Authors

Charlene Elliott

Abstract

To examine the nutritional quality of gluten-free (GF) products specifically marketed for children. All child-targeted food products were purchased from 2 major supermarket chains in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Using the Pan American Health Organization Nutrient Profile Model, the nutritional quality of products with a GF claim was compared with those without such a claim. A secondary analysis further compared the nutrient profile of child-targeted GF products to their product "equivalents." Overall, child-targeted GF products had lower levels of sodium, total fat, and saturated fat but also had less protein and a similar percentage of calories from sugar compared with child-targeted products without a GF claim. According to the Pan American Health Organization criteria, both GF products and "regular" products designed for children can be classified as having poor nutritional quality (88% vs 97%; P < .001). When analyzed in light of their product equivalents without a GF claim, both had similarly high levels of sugar (79% vs 81%; P < .001). GF supermarket foods that are targeted at children are not nutritionally superior to regular child-targeted foods and may be of greater potential concern because of their sugar content. The health halo often attributed to the GF label is not warranted, and parents who substitute GF products for their product equivalents (assuming GF products to be healthier) are mistaken. Parents of children with gluten intolerance and/or sensitivity, along with parents who purchase GF products for other health reasons, need to carefully assess product labels when making purchases.

Twitter Demographics

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 90 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 80 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 14%
Researcher 10 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Student > Postgraduate 6 8%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 26 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 13%
Unspecified 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 29 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 331. 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 18 March 2023.
All research outputs
#94,906
of 24,477,448 outputs
Outputs from Pediatrics
#573
of 17,983 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,047
of 335,207 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pediatrics
#19
of 178 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,477,448 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,983 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 47.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 335,207 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 178 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.