Scope and quality of Cochrane reviews of nutrition interventions: a cross-sectional study

Reporting completeness of nutrition and diet-related randomised controlled trials protocols

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

There is a need to consolidate reporting guidance for nutrition randomised controlled trial (RCT) protocols. The reporting completeness in nutrition RCT protocols and study characteristics associated with adherence to SPIRIT and TIDieR reporting guidelines are unknown. We, therefore, assessed reporting completeness and its potential predictors in a random sample of published nutrition and diet-related RCT protocols.

METHODS

We conducted a meta-research study of 200 nutrition and diet-related RCT protocols published in 2019 and 2021 (aiming to consider periods before and after the start of the COVID pandemic). Data extraction included bibliometric information, general study characteristics, compliance with 122 questions corresponding to items and subitems in the SPIRIT and TIDieR checklists combined, and mention to these reporting guidelines in the publications. We calculated the proportion of protocols reporting each item and the frequency of items reported for each protocol. We investigated associations between selected publication aspects and reporting completeness using linear regression analysis.

RESULTS

The majority of protocols included adults and elderly as their study population (n = 73; 36.5%), supplementation as intervention (n = 96; 48.0%), placebo as comparator (n = 89; 44.5%), and evaluated clinical status as the outcome (n = 80; 40.0%). Most protocols described a parallel RCT (n = 188; 94.0%) with a superiority framework (n = 141; 70.5%). Overall reporting completeness was 52.0% (SD = 10.8%). Adherence to SPIRIT items ranged from 0% (n = 0) (data collection methods) to 98.5% (n = 197) (eligibility criteria). Adherence to TIDieR items ranged from 5.5% (n = 11) (materials used in the intervention) to 98.5% (n = 197) (description of the intervention). The multivariable regression analysis suggests that a higher number of authors [β = 0.53 (95%CI: 0.28-0.78)], most recent published protocols [β = 3.19 (95%CI: 0.24-6.14)], request of reporting guideline checklist during the submission process by the journal [β = 6.50 (95%CI: 2.56-10.43)] and mention of SPIRIT by the authors [β = 5.15 (95%CI: 2.44-7.86)] are related to higher reporting completeness scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Reporting completeness in a random sample of 200 diet or nutrition-related RCT protocols was low. Number of authors, year of publication, self-reported adherence to SPIRIT, and journals' endorsement of reporting guidelines seem to be positively associated with reporting completeness in nutrition and diet-related RCT protocols.

Certainty of Evidence Assessment in Systematic Reviews Published by High-Impact Sports Science Journals: A Meta-epidemiological Study

BACKGROUND

Assessing certainty of evidence is a key element of any systematic review. The aim of this meta-epidemiology study was to understand the frequency and ways with which certainty of evidence is assessed in contemporary systematic reviews published in high-impact sports science journals.

METHODS

We searched PubMed and relevant journal web sites from 1 August 2016 to 11 October 2022 for systematic reviews published in the top-ten highest-impact journals within the 2020 Journal Citation Report for the Sports Sciences category. Pairs of independent reviewers screened items using a priori established criteria.

RESULTS

Of 1250 eligible documents, 258 (20.6%) assessed the certainty of evidence, defined as using two or more distinct domains to provide an overall rating of the trustworthiness of findings across studies. Nine methods were cited for assessing certainty, with the most common being the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach (61.6%). The proportion of systematic reviews assessing certainty of evidence appeared to increase over the 6-year timeframe analyzed. Across all reviews analyzed, a large majority addressed the domains of risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency of the results. Other certainty domains including indirectness/applicability were less commonly assessed.

DISCUSSION

Only one in five recent contemporary systematic reviews in the field of exercise and sports science assessed certainty of evidence. Organizational and institutional education on methods for assessing evidence may help further increase uptake of these methods and improve both the quality and clinical impact of systematic reviews in the field.

A Systematic Review of School-Based Nutrition Interventions for Promoting Healthy Dietary Practices and Lifestyle Among School Children and Adolescents

Childhood malnutrition is one of the foremost community health problems in the world, particularly in developing countries like India. This current review was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of various school-centered nutrition interventions/intervention programs developed in recent years, and their impact on the nutritional status, dietary habits, food preferences, lifestyle, and dietary behaviors in relation to diet, as well as physical activities for school children, especially adolescents. This review included studies found in the PubMed/Medline, SCOPUS, and Web of Science (WOS) databases, published from July 2017 to 2023. They were analyzed for eligibility criteria defined for this study, including school children and adolescents, school-based nutrition interventions/strategies/policies/initiatives, nutritional status, physical activity, dietary habits, and lifestyle. The Risk of Bias assessment was conducted using Review Manager version 5.4. Among 1776 potentially related studies, 108 met the eligibility criteria. Following this review, 62 studies were identified as eligible for this study, in which 38 intervention programs were discussed. A total of 13 studies were considered comprehensive and multi-component, 15 were nutrition education interventions, six were identified as physical activity interventions, and four focused on lifestyle and dietary behavior-related interventions. Another 24 of the 62 studies reviewed (approximately 39%) were either original articles, review articles, or articles pertaining to nutritional program guidelines, protocols, and/or reports. These studies uncovered a possible relationship between a decrease in BMI and school children's engagement in diet and/or physical activity. Results also suggest that these programs can be effective, although evidence for the long-term sustainability of changes in BMI was less evident and not fully substantiated/supported. Most of these findings are based on self-reported program data and may consist of biases linked to recall, selection of participants, and the desire to report favorable final measures (physical activity, lifestyle, and dietary habits). This study has the potential for use in public health programs devoted to healthy nutrition behavior and lifestyle practices. This research was primarily conducted by clinical researchers and did not receive any standardized institutional or organization-derived grant funding and support.

The Commercial Determinants of Health and Evidence Synthesis (CODES): methodological guidance for systematic reviews and other evidence syntheses

BACKGROUND

The field of the commercial determinants of health (CDOH) refers to the commercial products, pathways and practices that may affect health. The field is growing rapidly, as evidenced by the WHO programme on the economic and commercial determinants of health and a rise in researcher and funder interest. Systematic reviews (SRs) and evidence synthesis more generally will be crucial tools in the evolution of CDOH as a field. Such reviews can draw on existing methodological guidance, though there are areas where existing methods are likely to differ, and there is no overarching guidance on the conduct of CDOH-focussed systematic reviews, or guidance on the specific methodological and conceptual challenges.

METHODS/RESULTS

CODES provides guidance on the conduct of systematic reviews focussed on CDOH, from shaping the review question with input from stakeholders, to disseminating the review. Existing guidance was used to identify key stages and to provide a structure for the guidance. The writing group included experience in systematic reviews and other forms of evidence synthesis, and in equity and CDOH research (both primary research and systematic reviews).

CONCLUSIONS

This guidance highlights the special methodological and other considerations for CDOH reviews, including equity considerations, and pointers to areas for future methodological and guideline development. It should contribute to the reliability and utility of CDOH reviews and help stimulate the production of reviews in this growing field.

Credibility at stake: only two-thirds of randomized trials of nutrition interventions are registered and lack transparency in outcome and treatment effect definitions

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to investigate the adherence of randomized controlled trials of nutrition interventions to transparency practices informing assessments of selective reporting biases, including the availability of a trial registration entry, protocol and statistical analysis plan (SAP).

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Retrospective observational study with cross-sectional design. We systematically searched for trials published from 1 July 2019, to 30 June 2020, and included a randomly selected sample of 400 studies. We searched for registry entries, protocols, and SAPs for all included studies. We extracted data to characterize the disclosure of sufficient information in the available materials to inform assessments of selective reporting biases, considering the definition of outcome domain, measure, metric, method of aggregation, time point, analysis population, methods to handle missing data and method of adjustment.

RESULTS

Most trials (69%) were registered, but these often lacked sufficient specification of outcomes and intended treatment effects. Protocols and SAPs provided more details but were less often available (14% and 3%, respectively), and even then, almost all studies presented limited information to inform the assessments of risk of bias due to the selection of the reported result.

CONCLUSION

Lack of full specification of outcomes and intended treatment effects hinder a full adherence of randomized controlled trials of nutrition interventions to transparency practices and may affect their credibility.

In Cochrane nutrition reviews assessment of dietary adherence varied considerably

OBJECTIVES

Our aim was to investigate if and how Cochrane nutrition reviews assess dietary adherence to a specific dietary regimen.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Cochrane nutrition reviews fulfilling the following criteria were included: systematic review of randomized controlled trials including adults and investigating the effect of caloric restriction, dietary pattern, foods, nutrients, supplements, or other nutrition-related-interventions. Extensive data extraction and descriptive statistics were conducted.

RESULTS

Overall, 226 Cochrane reviews were included. Most reviews mentioned dietary adherence in the main text (n = 174), predominantly in the Methods and Results. Dietary adherence was assessed in 76 reviews and defined in 19. It was included in the risk of bias (RoB) assessment in 20 reviews with nine using a newly created RoB domain for dietary adherence, and considered as outcome in 37 reviews. Seventy-five reviews addressed degree of adherence and five treatment effects considering the degree of adherence.

CONCLUSION

Dietary adherence was reported in a heterogeneous manner in Cochrane nutrition reviews. Due to its high importance, we suggest that systematic reviews report the assessment and degree of dietary adherence measured in primary studies. Dietary adherence can further be examined as outcome, evaluated within the RoB (deviations from intended interventions) and included in sensitivity analyses.

Completeness of Reporting in Diet- and Nutrition-Related Randomized Controlled Trials and Systematic Reviews With Meta-Analysis: Protocol for 2 Independent Meta-Research Studies

BACKGROUND

Journal articles describing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews with meta-analysis of RCTs are not optimally reported and often miss crucial details. This poor reporting makes assessing these studies' risk of bias or reproducing their results difficult. However, the reporting quality of diet- and nutrition-related RCTs and meta-analyses has not been explored.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to assess the reporting completeness and identify the main reporting limitations of diet- and nutrition-related RCTs and meta-analyses of RCTs, estimate the frequency of reproducible research practices among these RCTs, and estimate the frequency of distorted presentation or spin among these meta-analyses.

METHODS

Two independent meta-research studies will be conducted using articles published in PubMed-indexed journals. The first will include a sample of diet- and nutrition-related RCTs; the second will include a sample of systematic reviews with meta-analysis of diet- and nutrition-related RCTs. A validated search strategy will be used to identify RCTs of nutritional interventions and an adapted strategy to identify meta-analyses in PubMed. We will search for RCTs and meta-analyses indexed in 1 calendar year and randomly select 100 RCTs (June 2021 to June 2022) and 100 meta-analyses (July 2021 to July 2022). Two reviewers will independently screen the titles and abstracts of records yielded by the searches, then read the full texts to confirm their eligibility. The general features of these published RCTs and meta-analyses will be extracted into a research electronic data capture database (REDCap; Vanderbilt University). The completeness of reporting of each RCT will be assessed using the items in the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials), its extensions, and the TIDieR (Template for Intervention Description and Replication) statements. Information about practices that promote research transparency and reproducibility, such as the publication of protocols and statistical analysis plans will be collected. There will be an assessment of the completeness of reporting of each meta-analysis using the items in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement and collection of information about spin in the abstracts and full-texts. The results will be presented as descriptive statistics in diagrams or tables. These 2 meta-research studies are registered in the Open Science Framework.

RESULTS

The literature search for the first meta-research retrieved 20,030 records and 2182 were potentially eligible. The literature search for the second meta-research retrieved 10,918 records and 850 were potentially eligible. Among them, random samples of 100 RCTs and 100 meta-analyses were selected for data extraction. Data extraction is currently in progress, and completion is expected by the beginning of 2023.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-research studies will summarize the main limitation on reporting completeness of nutrition- or diet-related RCTs and meta-analyses and provide comprehensive information regarding the particularities in the reporting of intervention studies in the nutrition field.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/43537.

Protocol for a meta-research study of protocols for diet or nutrition-related trials published in indexed journals: general aspects of study design, rationale and reporting limitations

INTRODUCTION

The Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) reporting guideline establishes a minimum set of items to be reported in any randomised controlled trial (RCT) protocol. The Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) reporting guideline was developed to improve the reporting of interventions in RCT protocols and results papers. Reporting completeness in protocols of diet or nutrition-related RCTs has not been systematically investigated. We aim to identify published protocols of diet or nutrition-related RCTs, assess their reporting completeness and identify the main reporting limitations remaining in this field.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will conduct a meta-research study of RCT protocols published in journals indexed in at least one of six selected databases between 2012 and 2022. We have run a search in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, PsycINFO and Global Health using a search strategy designed to identify protocols of diet or nutrition-related RCTs. Two reviewers will independently screen the titles and abstracts of records yielded by the search in Rayyan. The full texts will then be read to confirm protocol eligibility. We will collect general study features (publication information, types of participants, interventions, comparators, outcomes and study design) of all eligible published protocols in this contemporary sample. We will assess reporting completeness in a randomly selected sample of them and identify their main reporting limitations. We will compare this subsample with the items in the SPIRIT and TIDieR statements. For all data collection, we will use data extraction forms in REDCap. This protocol is registered on the Open Science Framework (DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/YWEVS).

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study will undertake a secondary analysis of published data and does not require ethical approval. The results will be disseminated through journals and conferences targeting stakeholders involved in nutrition research.

Empirical evidence of study design biases in nutrition randomised controlled trials: a meta-epidemiological study

BACKGROUND

Instruments to critically appraise randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are based on evidence from meta-epidemiological studies. We aim to conduct a meta-epidemiological study on the average bias associated with reported methodological trial characteristics such as random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and compliance of RCTs in nutrition research.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, for systematic reviews of RCTs, published between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2019. We combined the estimates of the average bias (e.g. ratio of risk ratios [RRR] or differences in standardised mean differences) in meta-analyses using the random-effects model. Subgroup analyses were conducted to investigate the potential differences among the RCTs with low versus high/unclear risk of bias with respect to the different types of interventions (e.g. micronutrients, fatty acids, dietary approach), outcomes (e.g. mortality, pregnancy outcomes), and type of outcome (objective, subjective). Heterogeneity was assessed through I² and τ², and prediction intervals were calculated.

RESULTS

We included 27 Cochrane nutrition reviews with 77 meta-analyses (n = 927 RCTs). The available evidence suggests that intervention effect estimates may not be exaggerated in RCTs with high/unclear risk of bias (versus low) judgement for sequence generation (RRR 0.97, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.02; I² = 28%; τ² = 0.002), allocation concealment (RRR 1.00, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.04; I² = 27%; τ² = 0.001), blinding of participants and personnel (RRR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.00; I² = 23%; τ² = 0), selective reporting (RRR 0.97, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.02; I² = 24%; τ² = 0), and compliance (RRR 0.95, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.02; I² = 0%; τ² = 0). Intervention effect estimates seemed to be exaggerated in RCTs with a high/unclear risk of bias judgement for blinding of outcome assessment (RRR 0.81, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.94; I² = 26%; τ² = 0.03), which was predominately driven by subjective outcomes, and incomplete outcome data (RRR 0.92, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.97; I² = 22%; τ² = 0.001). For continuous outcomes, no differences were observed, except for selective reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

On average, most characteristics of nutrition RCTs may not exaggerate intervention effect estimates, but the average bias appears to be greatest in trials of subjective outcomes. Replication of this study is suggested in this field to keep this conclusion updated.

The BERN Framework of Mind-Body Medicine: Integrating Self-Care, Health Promotion, Resilience, and Applied Neuroscience

Background: Mind-body medicine (MBM) focuses on improving our understanding of how the interactions between the brain, mind, body, and behavior can be used to promote health. In this narrative review, we present the basic principles of MBM, including the introduction of a rational framework for the implementation of MBM-based interventions. We also discuss the contributions of MBM to motivation and reward systems in the brain including those that may specifically involve the mitochondria.

Results: MBM can be used to promote health in patients with chronic diseases, especially conditions identified as lifestyle-related. MBM builds on salutogenesis, which is a paradigm that focuses on health (as opposed to disease) determinants and the development of individual resilience and coherence factors as a means to reduce stress, decrease the burden of disease, and improve the quality of life. This approach involves several well-known principles of self-healing and self-care. MBM interventions typically include behavioral modification techniques in conjunction with cognitive work focused on stress regulation, exercise, relaxation, meditation, and nutrition. We suggest the use of the acronym “BERN” (Behavior, Exercise, Relaxation, and Nutrition) to summarize the operational framework of this approach.

Discussion: Different BERN techniques act via shared autoregulatory central nervous system (CNS) reward and motivation circuitries. These systems rely on numerous neurobiological signaling pathways with overlapping effector molecules that converge, e.g., on nitric oxide (NO) as a common effector molecule. NO is critically coupled to reward physiology, stress reduction, and self-regulation as it modulates the responses of various mitochondrial, nuclear, and chromosomal processes within brain cells. NO has also been implicated in relevant outcomes (e.g., the placebo response).

Conclusions: MBM interventions typically follow the BERN model and aim to strengthen health and resilience, and reduce stress. The mechanisms of action of these processes involve the CNS reward systems and correlate with placebo and self-healing pathways.

Are systematic reviews addressing nutrition for cancer prevention trustworthy? A systematic survey of quality and risk of bias

CONTEXT

The last 30 years have yielded a vast number of systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses addressing the link between nutrition and cancer risk.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this survey was to assess overall quality and potential for risk of bias in systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) that examined the role of nutrition in cancer prevention.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched (last search performed November 2018).

STUDY SELECTION

Studies identified as SRMAs that investigated a nutritional or dietary intervention or exposure for cancer prevention in the general population or in people at risk of cancer and in which primary studies had a comparison group were eligible for inclusion. Screening, data extraction, and quality assessment were conducted independently by 2 reviewers.

DATA EXTRACTION

Altogether, 101 studies were randomly selected for analysis. The methodological quality and risk of bias were evaluated using the AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS tools, respectively.

RESULTS

Most SRMAs included observational studies. Less than 10% of SRMAs reported a study protocol, and only 51% of SRMAs assessed the risk of bias in primary studies. Most studies conducted subgroup analyses, but only a few reported tests of interaction or specified subgroups of interest a priori. Overall, according to AMSTAR-2, only 1% of SRMAs were of high quality, while 97% were of critically low quality. Only 3% had a low risk of bias, according to ROBIS.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic survey revealed substantial limitations with respect to quality and risk of bias of SRMAs. SRMAs examining nutrition and cancer prevention cannot be considered trustworthy, and results should be interpreted with caution. Peer reviewers as well as users of SRMAs should be advised to use the AMSTAR-2 and/or ROBIS instruments to help to determine the overall quality and risk of bias of SRMAs.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration number CRD42019121116.

An Empirical Evaluation of the Impact Scenario of Pooling Bodies of Evidence from Randomized Controlled Trials and Cohort Studies in Nutrition Research

Only very few Cochrane nutrition reviews include cohort studies (CSs), but most evidence in nutrition research comes from CSs. We aimed to pool bodies of evidence (BoE) from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) derived from Cochrane reviews with matched BoE from CSs. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and MEDLINE were searched for systematic reviews (SRs) of RCTs and SRs of CSs. BoE from RCTs were pooled together with BoE from CSs using random-effects and common-effect models. Heterogeneity, 95% prediction intervals, contributed weight of BoE from RCTs to the pooled estimate, and whether integration of BoE from CSs modified the conclusion from BoE of RCTs were evaluated. Overall, 80 diet-disease outcome pairs based on 773 RCTs and 720 CSs were pooled. By pooling BoE from RCTs and CSs with a random-effects model, for 45 (56%) out of 80 diet-disease associations the 95% CI excluded no effect and showed mainly a reduced risk/inverse association. By pooling BoE from RCTs and CSs, median I2 = 46% and the median contributed weight of RCTs to the pooled estimates was 34%. The direction of effect between BoE from RCTs and pooled effect estimates was rarely opposite (n = 17; 21%). The integration of BoE from CSs modified the result (by examining the 95% CI) from BoE of RCTs in 35 (44%) of the 80 diet-disease associations. Our pooling scenario showed that the integration of BoE from CSs modified the conclusion from BoE of RCTs in nearly 50% of the associations, although the direction of effect was mainly concordant between BoE of RCTs and pooled estimates. Our findings provide insights for the potential impact of pooling both BoE in Cochrane nutrition reviews. CSs should be considered for inclusion in future Cochrane nutrition reviews, and we recommend analyzing RCTs and CSs in separate meta-analyses, or, if combined together, with a subgroup analysis.

Assessments of risk of bias in systematic reviews of observational nutritional epidemiologic studies are often not appropriate or comprehensive: a methodological study

BACKGROUND

An essential component of systematic reviews is the assessment of risk of bias. To date, there has been no investigation of how reviews of non-randomised studies of nutritional exposures (called 'nutritional epidemiologic studies') assess risk of bias.

OBJECTIVE

To describe methods for the assessment of risk of bias in reviews of nutritional epidemiologic studies.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Jan 2018-Aug 2019) and sampled 150 systematic reviews of nutritional epidemiologic studies.

RESULTS

Most reviews (n=131/150; 87.3%) attempted to assess risk of bias. Commonly used tools neglected to address all important sources of bias, such as selective reporting (n=25/28; 89.3%), and frequently included constructs unrelated to risk of bias, such as reporting (n=14/28; 50.0%). Most reviews (n=66/101; 65.3%) did not incorporate risk of bias in the synthesis. While more than half of reviews considered biases due to confounding and misclassification of the exposure in their interpretation of findings, other biases, such as selective reporting, were rarely considered (n=1/150; 0.7%).

CONCLUSION

Reviews of nutritional epidemiologic studies have important limitations in their assessment of risk of bias.

Evaluating agreement between bodies of evidence from randomised controlled trials and cohort studies in nutrition research: meta-epidemiological study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the agreement between diet-disease effect estimates of bodies of evidence from randomised controlled trials and those from cohort studies in nutrition research, and to investigate potential factors for disagreement.

DESIGN

Meta-epidemiological study.

DATA SOURCES

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Medline.

REVIEW METHODS

Population, intervention or exposure, comparator, outcome (PI/ECO) elements from a body of evidence from cohort studies (BoE(CS)) were matched with corresponding elements of a body of evidence from randomised controlled trials (BoE(RCT)). Pooled ratio of risk ratios or difference of mean differences across all diet-disease outcome pairs were calculated. Subgroup analyses were conducted to explore factors for disagreement. Heterogeneity was assessed through I2 and τ2. Prediction intervals were calculated to assess the range of possible values for the difference in the results between evidence from randomised controlled trials and evidence from cohort studies in future comparisons.

RESULTS

97 diet-disease outcome pairs (that is, matched BoE(RCT) and BoE(CS)) were identified overall. For binary outcomes, the pooled ratio of risk ratios comparing estimates from BoE(RCT) with BoE(CS) was 1.09 (95% confidence interval 1.04 to 1.14; I2=68%; τ2=0.021; 95% prediction interval 0.81 to 1.46). The prediction interval indicated that the difference could be much more substantial, in either direction. We further explored heterogeneity and found that PI/ECO dissimilarities, especially for the comparisons of dietary supplements in randomised controlled trials and nutrient status in cohort studies, explained most of the differences. When the type of intake or exposure between both types of evidence was identical, the estimates were similar. For continuous outcomes, small differences were observed between randomised controlled trials and cohort studies.

CONCLUSION

On average, the difference in pooled results between estimates from BoE(RCT) and BoE(CS) was small. But wide prediction intervals and some substantial statistical heterogeneity in cohort studies indicate that important differences or potential bias in individual comparisons or studies cannot be excluded. Observed differences were mainly driven by dissimilarities in population, intervention or exposure, comparator, and outcome. These findings could help researchers further understand the integration of such evidence into prospective nutrition evidence syntheses and improve evidence based dietary guidelines.

Characteristics and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational nutritional epidemiology: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Dietary recommendations and policies should be guided by rigorous systematic reviews. Reviews that are of poor methodological quality may be ineffective or misleading. Most of the evidence in nutrition comes from nonrandomized studies of nutritional exposures (usually referred to as nutritional epidemiology studies), but to date methodological evaluations of the quality of systematic reviews of such studies have been sparse and inconsistent.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to investigate the quality of recently published systematic reviews and meta-analyses of nutritional epidemiology studies and to propose guidance addressing major limitations.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE (January 2018-August 2019), EMBASE (January 2018-August 2019), and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (January 2018-February 2019) for systematic reviews of nutritional epidemiology studies. We included a random sample of 150 reviews.

RESULTS

Most reviews were published by authors from Asia (n = 49; 32.7%) or Europe (n = 43; 28.7%) and investigated foods or beverages (n = 60; 40.0%) and cancer morbidity and mortality (n = 54; 36%). Reviews often had important limitations: less than one-quarter (n = 30; 20.0%) reported preregistration of a protocol and almost one-third (n = 42; 28.0%) did not report a replicable search strategy. Suboptimal practices and errors in the synthesis of results were common: one-quarter of meta-analyses (n = 30; 26.1%) selected the meta-analytic model based on statistical indicators of heterogeneity and almost half of meta-analyses (n = 50; 43.5%) did not consider dose-response associations even when it was appropriate to do so. Only 16 (10.7%) reviews used an established system to evaluate the certainty of evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Systematic reviews of nutritional epidemiology studies often have serious limitations. Authors can improve future reviews by involving statisticians, methodologists, and researchers with substantive knowledge in the specific area of nutrition being studied and using a rigorous and transparent system to evaluate the certainty of evidence.

Use of GRADE in evidence syntheses published in high-impact-factor nutrition journals: A methodological survey

OBJECTIVE

To identify and describe the use of the GRADE approach for rating the certainty of evidence in nutrition systematic reviews (SRs).

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We systematically searched for SRs using GRADE that were published between 2015 and 2019 in the 10 "nutrition" journals with the highest impact factor according to the JCR 2018.

RESULTS

Out of 800 SRs, 55 SRs of randomized control trials (RCTs) and/or nonrandomized studies (NRSs) used GRADE. Forty-seven SRs (5.9%) rated the outcome specific certainty of evidence (n = 36 in 2018/2019). We identified a total of 465 certainty of evidence outcome ratings (n = 335 RCT ratings), ranging from very-low (28.8%) to low (41%), moderate (26.5%), and high (3.7%). Very-low and high certainty of evidence ratings accounted for 61.4% and 0.8% of ratings in SRs of NRSs, compared to 16.1% and 4.8% in SRs of RCTs. Certainty of evidence was downgraded mostly for risk of bias (37.8%) and imprecision (33%) in SRs of RCTs and for imprecision (32.7%), risk of bias (29.4%) and inconsistency (29%) in SRs of NRSs.

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests a need for directing more attention toward strengthening acceptance of GRADE as well as building knowledge of the GRADE methodology in nutrition evidence synthesis.

Nutrition interventions in populations with mental health conditions: a scoping review

Nutrition is a modifiable factor for intervention in mental disorders. This scoping review characterized nutrition intervention research in mental disorders. A 3-category framework characterized nutrition interventions: Guide (e.g., counselling), Provide (e.g., food provisions), and Add (e.g., supplementation). Nutrition interventions were classified as single-component (e.g., Guide) or complex (e.g., Guide-Provide). Sixty-nine trials met inclusion criteria, 96% were randomized controlled trials. Most commonly diagnosed mental disorders were depressive disorder (i.e., persistent) or major depressive disorder (n = 39), schizophrenia (n = 17), and other psychotic disorders (n = 13). Few trials included patients with anxiety disorders (n = 2) or bipolar disorders (n = 3). Several trials (n = 15, 22%) assessed and implemented nutrition interventions to improve dietary patterns, of which 11 (73%) reported statistically significant and clinically important positive effects of nutrition interventions on mental disorders. The majority of the trials (n = 61, 90%) investigated supplementation, most commonly adding essential fatty acids, vitamins, or minerals. The majority (n = 48, 70%) reported either statistically significant or clinically important effect and 31 (51%) reported both. Though most interventions led to statistically significant improvements, trials were heterogeneous for targeted mental disorders, nutrition interventions, and outcomes assessed. Given considerable heterogeneity, further research from robust and clinically relevant trials is required to support high-quality health care with effective nutrition interventions. Novelty Future research on whole-diet interventions powered to detect changes in mental health outcomes as primary objectives is needed. Dietitians may be an opportunity to improve feasibility and efficacy of nutrition interventions for mental disorder patients. Dietitians may be of value to educate mental health practitioners on the importance of nutrition.

Research Priorities for Studies Linking Intake of Low-Calorie Sweeteners and Potentially Related Health Outcomes: Research Methodology and Study Design

Background: In a world of finite research funding, efforts to prioritize future research topics are increasingly necessary. Objective: The aim of this study was to identify and prioritize the direction of future research in the broad area of low-calorie sweetener (LCS) intake and potentially related health outcomes by using a novel method that incorporates evidence mapping in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Future Research Needs (FRN) process. Methods: A diverse expert stakeholder panel was convened and engaged to identify research gaps and prioritize future research needs. An independent research team hosted a number of interactive webinars and elicited feedback through surveys and individual interviews with the stakeholder panel, which included policymakers, lay audience members, health providers, a research funder, individuals with food industry experience, and researchers of several different specialties. Results: The stakeholder panel generated and ranked a list of 18 FRN questions across 5 broad research areas. Overall, stakeholder panel members unanimously agreed that the research questions that will have the largest public health impact are those that address outcomes related to body weight, appetite, and dietary intake. Although the LCSs included in this FRN project have all been Generally Recognized as Safe by the FDA or approved as food additives, the recurrent concerns and confusions with regard to the "safety" of LCSs by consumers underscore the importance of communicating the science to the general public. Conclusion: Our project provides evidence that engaging a diverse expert stakeholder panel is an effective method of translating gaps in nutrition research into prioritized areas of future research.