Methods used to select results to include in meta-analyses of nutrition research: a meta-research study

Investigation of bias due to selective inclusion of study effect estimates in meta-analyses of nutrition research

We aimed to explore, in a sample of systematic reviews (SRs) with meta-analyses of the association between food/diet and health-related outcomes, whether systematic reviewers selectively included study effect estimates in meta-analyses when multiple effect estimates were available. We randomly selected SRs of food/diet and health-related outcomes published between January 2018 and June 2019. We selected the first presented meta-analysis in each review (index meta-analysis), and extracted from study reports all study effect estimates that were eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis. We calculated the Potential Bias Index (PBI) to quantify and test for evidence of selective inclusion. The PBI ranges from 0 to 1; values above or below 0.5 suggest selective inclusion of effect estimates more or less favourable to the intervention, respectively. We also compared the index meta-analytic estimate to the median of a randomly constructed distribution of meta-analytic estimates (i.e., the estimate expected when there is no selective inclusion). Thirty-nine SRs with 312 studies were included. The estimated PBI was 0.49 (95% CI 0.42-0.55), suggesting that the selection of study effect estimates from those reported was consistent with a process of random selection. In addition, the index meta-analytic effect estimates were similar, on average, to what we would expect to see in meta-analyses generated when there was no selective inclusion. Despite this, we recommend that systematic reviewers report the methods used to select effect estimates to include in meta-analyses, which can help readers understand the risk of selective inclusion bias in the SRs.

Variation observed in consensus judgments between pairs of reviewers when assessing the risk of bias due to missing evidence in a sample of published meta-analyses of nutrition research

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the risk of bias due to missing evidence in a sample of published meta-analyses of nutrition research using the Risk Of Bias due to Missing Evidence (ROB-ME) tool and determine inter-rater agreement in assessments.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We assembled a random sample of 42 meta-analyses of nutrition research. Eight assessors were randomly assigned to one of four pairs. Each pair assessed 21 randomly assigned meta-analyses, and each meta-analysis was assessed by two pairs. We calculated raw percentage agreement and chance corrected agreement using Gwet's Agreement Coefficient (AC) in consensus judgments between pairs.

RESULTS

Across the eight signaling questions in the ROB-ME tool, raw percentage agreement ranged from 52% to 100%, and Gwet's AC ranged from 0.39 to 0.76. For the risk-of-bias judgment, the raw percentage agreement was 76% (95% confidence interval 60% to 92%) and Gwet's AC was 0.47 (95% confidence interval 0.14 to 0.80). In seven (17%) meta-analyses, either one or both pairs judged the risk of bias due to missing evidence as "low risk".

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicated substantial variation in assessments in consensus judgments between pairs for the signaling questions and overall risk-of-bias judgments. More tutorials and training are needed to help researchers apply the ROB-ME tool more consistently.

A Meta-Epidemiological Study of Positive Results in Clinical Nutrition Research: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly of Statistically Significant Findings

Positive (statistically significant) findings are easily produced in nutrition research when specific aspects of the research design and analysis are not accounted for. To address this issue, recently, a pledge was made to reform nutrition research and improve scientific trust on the science, encompass research transparency and achieve reproducibility. The aim of the present meta-epidemiological study was to evaluate the statistical significance status of research items published in three academic journals, all with a focus on clinical nutrition science and assessing certain methodological/transparency issues. All research items were published between the years 2015 and 2019. Study design, primary and secondary findings, sample size and age group, funding sources, positivist findings, the existence of a published research protocol and the adjustment of nutrients/dietary indexes to the energy intake (EI) of participants, were extracted for each study. Out of 2127 studies in total, those with positive findings consisted of the majority, in all three journals. Most studies had a published research protocol, however, this was mainly due to the randomized controlled trials and not to the evidence-synthesis studies. No differences were found in the distribution of positive findings according to the existence/inexistence of a published research protocol. In the pooled sample of studies, positive findings differed according to study design and more significant findings were reported by researchers failing to report any funding source. The majority of items published in the three journals (65.9%) failed to account for the EI of participants. The present results indicate that there is still room for the improvement of nutrition research in terms of design, analyses and reporting.