Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39891676›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of nutrition2025

Delphi survey to gather feedback on a CONSORT extension proposal for nutrition intervention trials.

Arnold William, Carl Lachat, Sanne Ahles, Karen J Murphy, Anne-Marie Minihane, Connie Weaver, Sangeetha Shyam, Jessica Rigutto-Farebrother, On behalf of the Federation of European Nutrition Societies (FENS) Working Groups on Improving Standards in the Science of Nutrition.

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of nutrition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Structural funding bias in red meat research: the elephant in the room.The American journal of clinical nutrition · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

9 authors.

Arnold WilliamDepartment of Food Technology, Safety and Health, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Carl LachatDepartment of Food Technology, Safety and Health, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Sanne AhlesDepartment of Nutrition and Movement Sciences, Institute of Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism (NUTRIM), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Karen J MurphyClinical and Health Sciences & Alliance for Research in Exercise, Nutrition and Activity University of South Australia, P.O. Box 2471, Adelaide, SA, 5001, Australia.
Anne-Marie MinihaneNutrition and Preventive Medicine, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia (UEA), Norwich, UK.
Connie WeaverSchool of Exercise and Nutritional Sciences, San Diego State University, San Diego, USA.
Sangeetha ShyamCentre for Translational Research, Institute for Research, Development, and Innovation (IRDI), International Medical University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Jessica Rigutto-FarebrotherLaboratory of Nutrition and Metabolic Epigenetics, Institute of Food, Nutrition and Health, ETH Zürich, LFV A44, Schmelzbergstrasse 7, 8092, Zürich, Switzerland. Jessica.Rigutto@hest.ethz.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1005-139X
On behalf of the Federation of European Nutrition Societies (FENS) Working Groups on Improving Standards in the Science of Nutrition.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeInadequate reporting of nutrition data can hinder the success of nutrition health policies. CONSORT provides guidance for reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and is required by most journals today, yet reporting of nutrition interventions may benefit from a more tailored approach. A Federation of European Nutrition Societies working group was created to improve quality and completeness of reporting of nutrition trials, and our work to date features a proposal for a CONSORT extension specific to nutrition RCTs. The present manuscript describes a Delphi survey conducted to gather opinion from a wider panel of nutrition and health experts and related interest-holders on our proposal.

methodsWe invited 138 potentially eligible participants to take part in the Delphi survey from a representative spread of expertise and geography. We employed a Likert scale with comments for our 32-item proposal in round 1, and a dichotomous scale with comments for our 29-item proposal in round 2. Threshold for agreement was set at ≥ 80% for both rounds.

resultsForty-seven potentially eligible participants responded to our invitation, 38 completed the first round and 36 completed the second. N = 23 (72%) items achieved ≥ 80% in round 1, and 100% of items in round 2. Three items were dropped or merged following round 1. A third Delphi round was not required to obtain consensus.

conclusionsThis Delphi expert consensus proposes a 29-item checklist specific to the reporting of nutrition RCTs and will inform further development of guidance through forthcoming consensus meetings.

Indexed as

Delphi TechniqueRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignChecklistConsensusHumansNutrition PolicyCONSORTDietary interventionsExpert opinionGuidelinesNutrition trialsReporting

Identifiers

PMID39891676
PMCPMC11787169

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.