Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33740039›Full record

ArticleThe American journal of clinical nutrition2021

Characteristics and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational nutritional epidemiology: a cross-sectional study.

Dena Zeraatkar, Arrti Bhasin, Rita E Morassut, Isabella Churchill, Arnav Gupta, Daeria O Lawson, Anna Miroshnychenko, Emily Sirotich, Komal Aryal, David Mikhail and 6 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The American journal of clinical nutrition, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
7.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Predictors of Higher Quality of Systematic Reviews Addressing Nutrition and Cancer Prevention.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Grading nutrition evidence: where to go from here?The American journal of clinical nutrition · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Dena ZeraatkarDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Arrti BhasinDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Rita E MorassutSchulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
Isabella ChurchillDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Arnav GuptaDepartment of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Daeria O LawsonDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Anna MiroshnychenkoDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Emily SirotichDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Komal AryalDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
David MikhailFaculty of Science, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Tauseef A KhanDepartment of Nutritional Sciences, Department of Medicine, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Vanessa HaSchool of Medicine, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
John L SievenpiperDepartment of Nutritional Sciences, Department of Medicine, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Steven E HannaDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Joseph BeyeneDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Russell J de SouzaDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Impact · CASt. Michael's Hospital · CAHarvard University · USMcMaster University · CAQueen's University · CAUniversity of Ottawa · CAWestern University · CA

Funding

CIHR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDietary recommendations and policies should be guided by rigorous systematic reviews. Reviews that are of poor methodological quality may be ineffective or misleading. Most of the evidence in nutrition comes from nonrandomized studies of nutritional exposures (usually referred to as nutritional epidemiology studies), but to date methodological evaluations of the quality of systematic reviews of such studies have been sparse and inconsistent.

objectivesWe aimed to investigate the quality of recently published systematic reviews and meta-analyses of nutritional epidemiology studies and to propose guidance addressing major limitations.

methodsWe searched MEDLINE (January 2018-August 2019), EMBASE (January 2018-August 2019), and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (January 2018-February 2019) for systematic reviews of nutritional epidemiology studies. We included a random sample of 150 reviews.

resultsMost reviews were published by authors from Asia (n = 49; 32.7%) or Europe (n = 43; 28.7%) and investigated foods or beverages (n = 60; 40.0%) and cancer morbidity and mortality (n = 54; 36%). Reviews often had important limitations: less than one-quarter (n = 30; 20.0%) reported preregistration of a protocol and almost one-third (n = 42; 28.0%) did not report a replicable search strategy. Suboptimal practices and errors in the synthesis of results were common: one-quarter of meta-analyses (n = 30; 26.1%) selected the meta-analytic model based on statistical indicators of heterogeneity and almost half of meta-analyses (n = 50; 43.5%) did not consider dose-response associations even when it was appropriate to do so. Only 16 (10.7%) reviews used an established system to evaluate the certainty of evidence.

conclusionsSystematic reviews of nutritional epidemiology studies often have serious limitations. Authors can improve future reviews by involving statisticians, methodologists, and researchers with substantive knowledge in the specific area of nutrition being studied and using a rigorous and transparent system to evaluate the certainty of evidence.

Indexed as

Meta-Analysis as TopicCross-Sectional StudiesHumansResearch DesignSystematic Reviews as Topiccredibilitynutritional epidemiologyqualityrisk of biassystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID33740039
PMCPMC8243916
OpenAlexW3137776331

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.