Cited by 257Consumer Attitudes and Food LabelingNutrition, Health and Food BehaviorObesity, Physical Activity, Diet

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Impact of Restaurant Menu Calorie Labeling

Open access
Long, Michael W., Tobias, Deirdre K., Cradock, Angie L., Batchelder, Holly, Gortmaker, Steven L.·2015·American Journal of Public Health

Abstract

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the relationship between menu calorie labeling and calories ordered or purchased in the PubMed, Web of Science, PolicyFile, and PAIS International databases through October 2013. Among 19 studies, menu calorie labeling was associated with a −18.13 kilocalorie reduction ordered per meal with significant heterogeneity across studies (95% confidence interval = −33.56, −2.70; P = .021; I 2 = 61.0%). However, among 6 controlled studies in restaurant settings, labeling was associated with a nonsignificant −7.63 kilocalorie reduction (95% confidence interval = −21.02, 5.76; P = .264; I 2 = 9.8%). Although current evidence does not support a significant impact on calories ordered, menu calorie labeling is a relatively low-cost education strategy that may lead consumers to purchase slightly fewer calories. These findings are limited by significant heterogeneity among nonrestaurant studies and few studies conducted in restaurant settings.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2105/ajph.2015.302570

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Part of this paper’s reference list could not be split into single entries.

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Long, M. W., Tobias, D. K., Cradock, A. L., Batchelder, H., & Gortmaker, S. L.
Affiliations
Tufts University (US)
Venue
American Journal of Public Health
Published
2015-05
Volume
105
Issue
5
Pages
e11-e24
ISSN
  • 0090-0036 (ISSN-L)
  • 1541-0048
OpenAlex
W2118351209
Cited by
257
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 32 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 8 · 2012: 1
FWCI
4.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Public Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
JPB Foundation
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Nutrition, Health and Food Behavior
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Obesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Keywords
restaurant menus, energy intake, food purchasing, food labeling policy, dietary energy reduction
MeSH terms
Energy Intake, Choice Behavior, Food Labeling, Food Preferences, Humans, Restaurants, Fast Foods

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review