Conflicts of interest in nutritional sciences: The forgotten bias in meta-analysis

What principles should guide interactions between population health researchers and the food industry? Systematic scoping review of peer-reviewed and grey literature

There is no explicit consensus amongst population health researchers regarding what constitutes acceptable or effective interactions with the food industry. This has led to confusion and disagreements over conflicts of interest, which can undermine the integrity of science. To clarify this issue, we aimed to systematically identify the key principles developed by population health researchers to prevent or minimize conflicts of interest when interacting with the food industry. Databases of peer-reviewed literature were searched. In addition, an advanced Google search, a request to experts seeking related documents, and hand searching of references were undertaken. Thematic analysis of the extracted data was undertaken. We examined 54 eligible documents describing guidelines for population health researchers when interacting with the food industry. Fifty-six principles were identified and synthesized in five themes. There were high levels of agreement in themes relating to research governance, transparency, and publication but less agreement and guidance on how principles should be applied in relation to funding and risk assessment. There is agreement on some of the general principles for preventing and minimizing conflicts of interests for population health researchers when interacting with the food industry. However, for issues such as assessing the appropriateness of an industry partner, greater clarity and consensus are required.

Perspective: NutriGrade: A Scoring System to Assess and Judge the Meta-Evidence of Randomized Controlled Trials and Cohort Studies in Nutrition Research

The objective of this study was to develop a scoring system (NutriGrade) to evaluate the quality of evidence of randomized controlled trial (RCT) and cohort study meta-analyses in nutrition research, building upon previous tools and expert recommendations. NutriGrade aims to assess the meta-evidence of an association or effect between different nutrition factors and outcomes, taking into account nutrition research-specific requirements not considered by other tools. In a pretest study, 6 randomly selected meta-analyses investigating diet-disease relations were evaluated with NutriGrade by 5 independent raters. After revision, NutriGrade was applied by the same raters to 30 randomly selected meta-analyses in the same thematic area. The reliability of ratings of NutriGrade items was calculated with the use of a multirater κ, and reliability of the total (summed scores) was calculated with the use of intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). The following categories for meta-evidence evaluation were established: high (8-10), moderate (6-7.99), low (4-5.99), and very low (0-3.99). The NutriGrade scoring system (maximum of 10 points) comprises the following items: 1) risk of bias, study quality, and study limitations, 2) precision, 3) heterogeneity, 4) directness, 5) publication bias, 6) funding bias, 7) study design, 8) effect size, and 9) dose-response. The NutriGrade score varied between 2.9 (very low meta-evidence) and 8.8 (high meta-evidence) for meta-analyses of RCTs, and it ranged between 3.1 and 8.8 for meta-analyses of cohort studies. The κ value of the ratings for each scoring item varied from 0.32 (95% CI: 0.22, 0.42) for risk of bias for cohort studies and 0.95 (95% CI: 0.91, 0.99) for study design, with a mean κ of 0.66 (95% CI: 0.53, 0.79). The ICC of the total score was 0.81 (95% CI: 0.69, 0.90). The NutriGrade scoring system showed good agreement and reliability. The initial findings regarding the performance of this newly established scoring system need further evaluation in independent analyses.

Perspective: NutriGrade: A Scoring System to Assess and Judge the Meta-Evidence of Randomized Controlled Trials and Cohort Studies in Nutrition Research

The objective of this study was to develop a scoring system (NutriGrade) to evaluate the quality of evidence of randomized controlled trial (RCT) and cohort study meta-analyses in nutrition research, building upon previous tools and expert recommendations. NutriGrade aims to assess the meta-evidence of an association or effect between different nutrition factors and outcomes, taking into account nutrition research-specific requirements not considered by other tools. In a pretest study, 6 randomly selected meta-analyses investigating diet-disease relations were evaluated with NutriGrade by 5 independent raters. After revision, NutriGrade was applied by the same raters to 30 randomly selected meta-analyses in the same thematic area. The reliability of ratings of NutriGrade items was calculated with the use of a multirater κ, and reliability of the total (summed scores) was calculated with the use of intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). The following categories for meta-evidence evaluation were established: high (8-10), moderate (6-7.99), low (4-5.99), and very low (0-3.99). The NutriGrade scoring system (maximum of 10 points) comprises the following items: 1) risk of bias, study quality, and study limitations, 2) precision, 3) heterogeneity, 4) directness, 5) publication bias, 6) funding bias, 7) study design, 8) effect size, and 9) dose-response. The NutriGrade score varied between 2.9 (very low meta-evidence) and 8.8 (high meta-evidence) for meta-analyses of RCTs, and it ranged between 3.1 and 8.8 for meta-analyses of cohort studies. The κ value of the ratings for each scoring item varied from 0.32 (95% CI: 0.22, 0.42) for risk of bias for cohort studies and 0.95 (95% CI: 0.91, 0.99) for study design, with a mean κ of 0.66 (95% CI: 0.53, 0.79). The ICC of the total score was 0.81 (95% CI: 0.69, 0.90). The NutriGrade scoring system showed good agreement and reliability. The initial findings regarding the performance of this newly established scoring system need further evaluation in independent analyses.