ReviewInternational journal of obesity (2005)2021
Errors in the implementation, analysis, and reporting of randomization within obesity and nutrition research: a guide to their avoidance.
Review in International journal of obesity (2005), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Ultra-processed foods consumption and health-related outcomes: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in nutrition · 2024Pooled it
- Dietary Changes and Their Predictors in the First Year After Childbirth in Women with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Post Hoc Longitudinal Analysis from the Face-it Trial.The Journal of nutrition · 2025Trial
- Comment on: 'Ultrasound-guided injection strategies for lateral epicondylitis-a multicenter randomized comparison of corticosteroid, platelet-rich plasma, and ozone'.Future science OA · 2026Article
- Article
- When randomisation goes horribly wrong: examples of major failures of randomisation and strategies to avoid them.Trials · 2025Review
- Advice to early career nutritionists on working in and with the food industry.Nutrition bulletin · 2025Article
- The Alternative Factors Leading to Replication Crisis: Prediction and Evaluation.Evaluation review · 2025Article
- Quality Assessment of Randomized Controlled Trials Published In Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery (MAOS) From 2009-2021 Using RoB-2.0 Tool.Journal of maxillofacial and oral surgery · 2025Review
- The fortunes and misfortunes of social life across the life course: A new era of research from field, laboratory and comparative studies.Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews · 2024Article
- Article
- Appropriately estimating the standardized average treatment effect with missing data: A simulation and primer.Behavior research methods · 2024Article
- Optimizing clinical nutrition research: the role of adaptive and pragmatic trials.European journal of clinical nutrition · 2023Review
- Causal models and causal modelling in obesity: foundations, methods and evidence.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023Review
- Why and How to Account for Sex and Gender in Brain and Behavioral Research.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2023Article
- Assessing the reporting quality of adult neuro-oncology protocols, abstracts, and trials: Adherence to the SPIRIT and CONSORT statements.Neuro-oncology practice · 2023Article
- Factors associated with choice of behavioural weight loss program by adults with obesity.Clinical obesity · 2023Article
- Chowing down: diet considerations in rodent models of metabolic disease.Life metabolism · 2023Article
- Incorrectly Labeled Randomized Study and Inappropriate Within-Group Comparisons in: "Effectiveness of Home Gardening in Improving Food Security and Health in Chacraseca, Nicaragua: A Pilot Study".Journal of health care for the poor and underserved · 2023Article
- 3Rs Principle and Legislative Decrees to Achieve High Standard of Animal Research.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
- From Model Organisms to Humans, the Opportunity for More Rigor in Methodologic and Statistical Analysis, Design, and Interpretation of Aging and Senescence Research.The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Randomization is an important tool used to establish causal inferences in studies designed to further our understanding of questions related to obesity and nutrition. To take advantage of the inferences afforded by randomization, scientific standards must be upheld during the planning, execution, analysis, and reporting of such studies. We discuss ten errors in randomized experiments from real-world examples from the literature and outline best practices for their avoidance. These ten errors include: representing nonrandom allocation as random, failing to adequately conceal allocation, not accounting for changing allocation ratios, replacing subjects in nonrandom ways, failing to account for non-independence, drawing inferences by comparing statistical significance from within-group comparisons instead of between-groups, pooling data and breaking the randomized design, failing to account for missing data, failing to report sufficient information to understand study methods, and failing to frame the causal question as testing the randomized assignment per se. We hope that these examples will aid researchers, reviewers, journal editors, and other readers to endeavor to a high standard of scientific rigor in randomized experiments within obesity and nutrition research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.