ReviewNutrients2023
A Cross-Sectional Study Based on Forty Systematic Reviews of Foods with Function Claims (FFC) in Japan: Quality Assessment Using AMSTAR 2.
Review in Nutrients, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Investigate the relationship between the retraction reasons and the quality of methodology in non-Cochrane retracted systematic reviews: a systematic review.Systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Functional Foods in Health Promotion and Disease Prevention: Innovations, Evidence and Challenges.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Review
- Methodological and reporting quality assessment of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the association between sleep duration and hypertension.Systematic reviews · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Foods with Function Claims (FFC) was introduced in Japan in April 2015 to make more products available that are labeled with health functions. The products' functionality of function claims must be explained by scientific evidence presented in systematic reviews (SRs), but the quality of recent SRs is unclear. This study assessed the quality of SRs in the FFC registered on the Consumer Affairs Agency (CAA) website in Japan.
methodsWe searched the database from 1 April to 31 October 2022. Confidence in the methodological quality of each SR was evaluated by the AMSTAR 2 checklist.
resultsForty SRs were randomly extracted on the basis of the eligibility criteria and recruitment procedures. Overall confidence was rated as "high" (
conclusionOverall, the methodological quality of the SRs based on the FFC, introduced eight years earlier, was very poor. This was especially true in the interpretation and discussion of critical domains, which had many deficiencies in terms of protocol registration, a comprehensive literature search strategy, and accounting for the RoB.
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.