Food consumption on campus is associated with meal eating patterns among college students.

This is a cross-sectional analysis of data obtained in the baseline of the Longitudinal Study on the Lifestyle and Health of University Students (n 685) carried out in a public Brazilian university. Food intake was assessed using a 24-h dietary recall. Dietary patterns (DP) for breakfast, lunch and dinner were identified using principal component analysis. Generalised linear models were used to analyse the variables associated with each DP. Three DP were extracted for each meal: breakfast: 'White bread and butter/margarine', 'Coffee and tea' and 'Sausages, whole wheat bread and cheese'; lunch: 'Traditional', 'Western' and 'Vegetarian' and dinner: 'Beans, rice and processed juice', 'White bread and butter/margarine' and 'White meat, eggs and natural juice'. Students who had meals at the campus showed greater adherence to the 'White bread and butter/margarine' (exp (ßadj) = 1·15, 95 % CI 1·11, 1·19) and 'Coffee and tea' (exp (ßadj) = 1·06, 95 % CI 1·02, 1·10) breakfast patterns; 'Western' lunch pattern (exp (ßadj) = 1·04, 95 % CI 1·01, 1·08) and to the 'Beans, rice and processed juice' dinner pattern (exp (ßadj) = 1·10, 95 % CI 1·06, 1·14). Having meals at the campus was associated with lower adherence to the 'Sausages, whole wheat bread and cheese' breakfast pattern (exp (ßadj) = 0·93, 95 % CI 0·89, 0·97), 'Traditional' lunch pattern (exp (ßadj) = 0·96, 95 % CI 0·93, 0·99) and to the 'White bread and butter/margarine' (exp (ßadj) = 0·96, 95 % CI 0·93, 0·99) and 'White meat, eggs and natural juice' (exp (ßadj) = 0·96, 95 % CI 0·93, 0·99) dinner pattern. The food environment at campus may influence students' DP. Recognising meal eating patterns is important to support healthy eating promotion strategies on campus. Adjustments in the University Canteen menu could contribute to healthier eating choices among students.

National clinical practice guidelines for allergen immunotherapy: An international assessment applying AGREE-II.

BACKGROUND: Since 1988, numerous allergen immunotherapy guidelines (AIT-GLs) have been developed by national and international organizations to guide physicians in AIT. Even so, AIT is still severely underused. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate AIT-GLs with AGREE-II, developed in 2010 by McMaster University methodologists to comprehensively evaluate GL quality. METHODS: Allergist, from different continents, knowledgeable in AIT and AGREE-II trained were selected into the project team. The project received methodologists' guidance. AIT-GLs in any language were sought from 1980 to 2016; AIT-GLs were AGREE II-evaluated by at least 2 team members, independently; discrepancies were resolved in a second round, by team discussion or methodologists' consulting. RESULTS: We found 31 AIT-GLs (15 post-2010), ranging from local consensus reports to international position papers (EAACI, AAAAI-ACAAI, WAO). Pre-2010 GLs scored 1.6-4.6 (23%-67%) and post-2010 GLs scored 2.1-6 (30%-86%), on a 7-point Likert scale. The highest scores went to: German-Austrian-Swiss (6.0), Mexican (5.1), and the AAAAI/ACAAI AIT-GL (4.7). These were also the only 3 GLs that received "yes" of both evaluators to the item: "I would recommend this GL for use." The domains of "Stakeholder involvement" and "Rigor of Development" only scored 3/7, and "Applicability" scored the lowest. Strikingly, newer GLs only scored clearly better in "Editorial independence" and "Global evaluation." CONCLUSIONS: In AIT-GLs, there is still a lot of room for improvement, especially in domains crucial for the dissemination. For some GLs, the "Scientific rigor" domain flawed. When resources are limited, transculturizing a high-quality GL might be preferable over developing a GL from zero. Our study and AGREE-II could help to select the best candidate. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: We here evaluate allergen immunotherapy guideline (AIT-GL) quality. Only high-quality AIT-GLs should be consulted for AIT management decisions. In low-resource settings, transculturization of these is preferred over developing low-quality guidelines.