4.8 Article

Food additives and hyperactive behaviour in 3-year-old and 8/9-year-old children in the community: a randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial

期刊

LANCET
卷 370, 期 9598, 页码 1560-1567

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61306-3

关键词

-

资金

  1. Medical Research Council [G0400503B] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background We undertook a randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, crossover trial to test whether intake of artificial food colour and additives (AFCA) affected childhood behaviour. Methods 153 3-year-old and 144 8/9-year-old children were included in the study. The challenge drink contained sodium benzoate and one of two AFCA mixes (A or B) or a placebo mix. The main outcome measure was a global hyperactivity aggregate (GHA), based on aggregated z-scores of observed behaviours and ratings by teachers and parents, plus, for 8/9-year-old children, a computerised test of attention. This clinical trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials (registration number ISRCTN74481308). Analysis was per protocol. Findings 16 3-year-old children and 14 8/9-year-old children did not complete the study, for reasons unrelated to childhood behaviour. Mix A had a significantly adverse effect compared with placebo in GHA for all 3-year-old children (effect size 0.20 [95% CI 0.01-0.39], p=0.044) but not mix B versus placebo. This result persisted when analysis was restricted to 3-year-old children who consumed more than 85% of juice and had no missing data (0.32 [0.05-0.60], p=0.02). 8/9-year-old children showed a significantly adverse effect when given mix A (0.12 [0.02-0.23], p=0.023) or mix B (0.17 [0.07-0.28], p=0.001) when analysis was restricted to those children consuming at least 85% of drinks with no missing data. Interpretation Artificial colours or a sodium benzoate preservative (or both) in the diet result in increased hyperactivity in 3-year-old and 8/9-year-old children in the general population.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据