Explanatory models are needed to integrate RCT and observational data with the patient's unique biology

Transforming personalized nutrition practice

The strengths and limitations of current approaches to clinical nutrition practice and their underpinning research are explored in this article. It describes how a personalized nutrition practice approach supported by evidence-based pathophysiological reasoning could direct additional research, which could then transform practice and support food industry developments. Current use of the term "personalized nutrition" is reviewed and a definition is provided. Also explored are current approaches to personalized nutrition practice and evidence-based practice in clinical nutrition. Patient-centered practice, which involves individuals in their healthcare decisions, is currently being provided under the name "personalized." An evidence-based personalized practice approach should include the use of robust, standardized, and validated tools that gather a patient's signs and symptoms, health history, family history, genetics, environment, lifestyle, social life, diet, behavior and other factors that have an impact on physiological processes. It should also gather anthropometric measures as well as functional, diagnostic, and prognostic biomarkers for pathophysiological mechanisms. Such tools would pool n = 1 data into a case-by-case evidence base that uses computational network modelling to predict the efficacy of personalized nutrition interventions. Prediction of the efficacy of interventions should also be validated using, when possible, blinded, randomized, controlled, stratified intervention studies. This model would provide practitioners with data that support evidence-based pathophysiological reasoning. It would enable clinicians to prioritize interventions on the basis of the mechanisms of action of interventions and to ameliorate the mechanisms of pathophysiology, which are a priority for the individual. Interventions then may be applied using a patient-centered practice approach. This would transform evidence-based nutrition practice into a P4 medicine approach that is personalized, preventive, predictive, and participatory. Developing pathophysiological mechanistic understanding also provides new opportunities for stakeholders, including the food industry, researchers, healthcare practitioners, and consumers.

The Ethics of Ironic Science in Its Search for Spoof

The goal of most scientific research published in peer-review journals is to discover and report the truth. However, the research record includes tongue-in-cheek papers written in the conventional form and style of a research paper. Although these papers were intended to be taken ironically, bibliographic database searches show that many have been subsequently cited as valid research, some in prestigious journals. We attempt to understand why so many readers cited such ironic science seriously. We draw from the literature on error propagation in research publication for ways categorize citations. We adopt the concept of irony from the fields of literary and rhetorical criticism to detect, characterize, and analyze the interpretations in the more than 60 published research papers that cite an instance of ironic science. We find a variety of interpretations: some citing authors interpret the research as valid and accept it, some contradict or reject it, and some acknowledge its ironic nature. We conclude that publishing ironic science in a research journal can lead to the same troubles posed by retracted research, and we recommend relevant changes to publication guidelines.

Using multiple types of studies in systematic reviews of health care interventions--a systematic review

BACKGROUND

A systematic review may evaluate different aspects of a health care intervention. To accommodate the evaluation of various research questions, the inclusion of more than one study design may be necessary. One aim of this study is to find and describe articles on methodological issues concerning the incorporation of multiple types of study designs in systematic reviews on health care interventions. Another aim is to evaluate methods studies that have assessed whether reported effects differ by study types.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Cochrane Methodology Register on 31 March 2012 and identified 42 articles that reported on the integration of single or multiple study designs in systematic reviews. We summarized the contents of the articles qualitatively and assessed theoretical and empirical evidence. We found that many examples of reviews incorporating multiple types of studies exist and that every study design can serve a specific purpose. The clinical questions of a systematic review determine the types of design that are necessary or sufficient to provide the best possible answers. In a second independent search, we identified 49 studies, 31 systematic reviews and 18 trials that compared the effect sizes between randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials, which were statistically different in 35%, and not different in 53%. Twelve percent of studies reported both, different and non-different effect sizes.

CONCLUSIONS

Different study designs addressing the same question yielded varying results, with differences in about half of all examples. The risk of presenting uncertain results without knowing for sure the direction and magnitude of the effect holds true for both nonrandomized and randomized controlled trials. The integration of multiple study designs in systematic reviews is required if patients should be informed on the many facets of patient relevant issues of health care interventions.