SynthesisBMC medicine2025
Evaluating agreement between individual nutrition randomised controlled trials and cohort studies - a meta-epidemiological study.
Synthesis in BMC medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
- Vitamin D and Health: Establishing Causal Relationships Through Observational Evidence and Hill's Criteria in a Biological Framework.Nutrients · 2026Review
- Article
- Concordance between nutritional cohorts and randomized trials: biological confirmation or statistical consequence? A re-analysis of Stadelmaier et al.BMC medicine · 2026Article
- Application of a Food-Based Nutritional Profiling System to Assess Diet Quality in Diet-Level Data: Evidence on Construct and Convergent Validity from the Hatoyama Cohort Study and Kusatsu Cohort Study.Current developments in nutrition · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn nutrition research, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies provide complementary evidence. This meta-epidemiological study aims to evaluate the agreement of effect estimates from individual nutrition RCTs and cohort studies investigating a highly similar research question and to investigate determinants of disagreement.
methodsMEDLINE, Epistemonikos, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from January 2010 to September 2021. We matched individual RCTs to cohort studies based on population, intervention/exposure, comparator, and outcome (PI/ECO) characteristics. Two reviewers independently extracted study characteristics and effect estimates and rated the risk of bias using RoB2 and ROBINS-E. Agreement of matched RCTs/cohort studies was analysed by pooling ratio of risk ratios (RRR) and difference of (standardised) mean differences (DSMD).
resultsWe included 64 RCT/cohort study pairs with 4,136,837 participants. Regarding PI/ECO similarity, 20.3% pairs were "more or less identical", 71.9% "similar but not identical" and 7.8% "broadly similar". Most RCTs were classified as "low risk of bias" (26.6%) or with "some concerns" (65.6%); cohort studies were mostly rated with "some concerns" (46.6%) or "high risk of bias" (47.9%), driven by inadequate control of important confounding factors. Effect estimates across RCTs and cohort studies were in high agreement (RRR 1.00 (95% CI 0.91-1.10, n = 54); and DSMD - 0.26 (95% CI - 0.87-0.35, n = 7)). In meta-regression analyses exploring determinants of disagreements, risk-of-bias judgements tend to have had more influence on the effect estimate than "PI/ECO similarity" degree.
conclusionsEffect estimates of nutrition RCTs and cohort studies were generally similar. Careful consideration and evaluation of PI/ECO characteristics and risk of bias is crucial for a trustworthy utilisation of evidence from RCTs and cohort studies.
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.