Description
This dataset provides Supplementary Data to Tulloch, Bogueva et al. (2023). How the EAT–Lancet Commission on food in the Anthropocene influenced discourse and research on food systems: a systematic review covering the first 2 years
post-publication. Lancet Global Health 11: S2214-109X(23)00212-7.
The dataset includes: (1) Metadata; (2) Extracted data for 192 articles from the systematic review of articles citing the EAT–Lancet Commission on food's publication in the Lancet (Willett W, et al. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. The Lancet 2019; 393(10170): 447-92); (3) Quality assessment of each negative critique identified in citing articles, to evaluate the level of evidence supporting each negative comment; (4) Quality assessment of each future policy and research recommendation from articles describing research agendas for food systems transformation.
Steps to reproduce
Search strategy, selection criteria and data extraction
We undertook a systematic review of papers citing the EAT-Lancet report from its publication in January 2019 to 30th April 2021 by carrying out a cited reference search for the article "Willett W, et al. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. The Lancet 2019; 393(10170): 447-92" in the following databases: Pub Med, Web of Science, SCOPUS and Google Scholar. The search returned 2560 unique publications. We included peer-reviewed articles and opinion pieces but excluded theses, book chapters, conference abstracts, and papers not in English. References were uploaded to a web-based review management software programme (Covidence). Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, with conflicts resolved by a third reviewer. The main inclusion criterion was a primary focus on food systems, food system components (production, marketing/retail, consumption), or their sustainability, as defined by FAO. 1058 were selected for full text screening, which was carried out by two independent reviewers with conflicts resolved by a third reviewer. The main exclusion criterion was if the article cited the EAT-Lancet only in a general background context, with an article only included if it specifically applied EAT-Lancet results or recommendations in methodology, interpretation of results or discussion. 192 articles met inclusion criteria. Data extraction was undertaken using Covidence. Extracted data comprised: year of publication; region of study; type of article; funding source(s); population group; primary food system sector; study methodology; type of application of the EAT-Lancet report and the authors’ main aims, conclusions/key findings and future research recommendations, with the last three items copied verbatim from text.
Quality assessments
For all articles categorised as “type of application of the EAT-Lancet report: critique/debate” or “type of article: Commentary/opinion piece/editorial”, we classified author critiques as positive or negative. For each negative critique, we conducted a quality assessment to evaluate the level of supporting evidence. Each critique was assessed by two independent reviewers and assigned a quality of evidence value of low (opinion-based, not supported by any additional evidence), medium (supported by expert opinion and citations, no additional data or analyses), or high (evidence-based, supported by new analyses or data), with conflicts resolved by a third reviewer.
For articles presenting future policy or research agendas, we summarised key recommendations and conducted a quality assessment (using the criteria described above) to evaluate the level of evidence supporting each recommendation.
Please refer to the paper for further details on how data were extracted and analysed.
Categories
Economics, Public Opinion, Nutrition, Sustainability, Consumption, Data Modelling, Biodiversity, Policy, Diet, Health, Food Production, Literature Review, Sustainable Agriculture, Dietary Guidelines, Environmental Impact of Food, Health and Well-Being, Food Waste, Cross-Sectional Research Method, Dietary Change