Evidence mapPaperPMID 37604308Full record

ArticleAdvances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.)2023

Dietary Assessment and Metabolomic Methodologies in Human Feeding Studies: A Scoping Review.

Erin D Clarke, Jessica Ja Ferguson, Jordan Stanford, Clare E Collins

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
field-weighted citation impact
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Metabolomic heterogeneity of ageing with ethnic diversity: a step closer to healthy ageing.Metabolomics : Official journal of the Metabolomic Society · 2024
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Erin D ClarkeSchool of Health Sciences, College of Health Medicine and Wellbeing, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia; Food and Nutrition Research Program, Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton Heights, NSW, Australia.
Jessica Ja FergusonSchool of Health Sciences, College of Health Medicine and Wellbeing, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia; Food and Nutrition Research Program, Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton Heights, NSW, Australia.
Jordan StanfordSchool of Health Sciences, College of Health Medicine and Wellbeing, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia; Food and Nutrition Research Program, Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton Heights, NSW, Australia.
Clare E CollinsSchool of Health Sciences, College of Health Medicine and Wellbeing, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia; Food and Nutrition Research Program, Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton Heights, NSW, Australia. Electronic address: clare.collins@newcastle.edu.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Dietary metabolomics is a relatively objective approach to identifying new biomarkers of dietary intake and for use alongside traditional methods. However, methods used across dietary feeding studies vary, thus making it challenging to compare results. The objective of this study was to synthesize methodological components of controlled human feeding studies designed to quantify the diet-related metabolome in biospecimens, including plasma, serum, and urine after dietary interventions. Six electronic databases were searched. Included studies were as follows: 1) conducted in healthy adults; 2) intervention studies; 3) feeding studies focusing on dietary patterns; and 4) measured the dietary metabolome. From 12,425 texts, 50 met all inclusion criteria. Interventions were primarily crossover (n = 25) and parallel randomized controlled trials (n = 22), with between 8 and 395 participants. Seventeen different dietary patterns were tested, with the most common being the "High versus Low-Glycemic Index/Load" pattern (n = 11) and "Typical Country Intake" (n = 11); with 32 providing all or the majority (90%) of food, 16 providing some food, and 2 providing no food. Metabolites were identified in urine (n = 31) and plasma/serum (n = 30). Metabolites were quantified using liquid chromatography, mass spectroscopy (n = 31) and used untargeted metabolomics (n = 37). There was extensive variability in the methods used in controlled human feeding studies examining the metabolome, including dietary patterns tested, biospecimen sample collection, and metabolomic analysis techniques. To improve the comparability and reproducibility of controlled human feeding studies examining the metabolome, it is important to provide detailed information about the dietary interventions being tested, including information about included or restricted foods, food groups, and meal plans provided. Strategies to control for individual variability, such as a crossover study design, statistical adjustment methods, dietary-controlled run-in periods, or providing standardized meals or test foods throughout the study should also be considered. The protocol for this review has been registered at Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/DAHGS).

Indexed as

MetabolomicsNutrition AssessmentAdultBiomarkersCross-Over StudiesDietHumansMetabolomeReproducibility of ResultsBiomarkersbiomarkersdietary assessmentdietary intakedietary metabolomefeeding interventionsmetabolitesmetabolomics

Identifiers

PMID37604308
PMCPMC10721540

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.