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

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raju Kanukula ◽  
Joanne E McKenzie ◽  
Lisa Bero ◽  
Zhaoli Dai ◽  
Sally McDonald ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Research Study ◽  
Nutrition Research ◽  
Meta Analyses

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

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raju Kanukula ◽  
Joanne E McKenzie ◽  
Lisa Bero ◽  
Zhaoli Dai ◽  
Sally McDonald ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Random Sample ◽  
Decision Rule ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Research Study ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Nutrition Research ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Meta Analyses

Objectives: To investigate the extent of multiplicity of results in study reports of nutrition research, and the methods specified in systematic reviews to select results for inclusion in meta-analyses. Methods: MEDLINE and Epistemonikos were searched (January 2018 - June 2019) to identify systematic reviews with meta-analysis of the association between food/diet and health-related outcomes. A random sample of these reviews was selected, and for the first presented ('index') meta-analysis, rules used to select effect estimates to include in this meta-analysis were extracted from the reviews and their protocols. All effect estimates from the primary studies that were eligible for inclusion in the index meta-analyses were extracted. Results: Forty-two systematic reviews were included, 14 of which had a protocol. In 29% of review protocols and 69% of reviews, at least one decision rule to select effect estimates when multiple were available was specified. In 69% (204/325) of studies included in the index meta-analyses, there was at least one type of multiplicity of results. Conclusions: Authors of systematic reviews of nutrition research should anticipate encountering multiplicity of results in the included primary studies. Specification of methods to handle multiplicity when designing reviews is therefore recommended.

scholarly journals Investigation of Risk Of Bias due to Unreported and SelecTively included results in meta-analyses of nutrition research: the ROBUST study protocol

F1000Research ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 1760 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew J. Page ◽  
Lisa Bero ◽  
Cynthia M. Kroeger ◽  
Zhaoli Dai ◽  
Sally McDonald ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Included Study ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Dietary Guidelines ◽  
Healthy Population ◽  
Nutrition Research ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background: Dietary guidelines should be informed by systematic reviews (SRs) of the available scientific evidence. However, if the SRs that underpin dietary guidelines are flawed in their design, conduct or reporting, the recommendations contained therein may be misleading or harmful. To date there has been little empirical investigation of bias due to selective inclusion of results, and bias due to missing results, in SRs of food/diet-outcome relationships. Objectives: To explore in SRs with meta-analyses of the association between food/diet and health-related outcomes: (i) whether systematic reviewers selectively included study effect estimates in meta-analyses when multiple effect estimates were available; (ii) what impact selective inclusion of study effect estimates may have on meta-analytic effects, and; (iii) the risk of bias due to missing results (publication bias and selective non-reporting bias) in meta-analyses. Methods: We will systematically search for SRs with meta-analysis of the association between food/diet and health-related outcomes in a generally healthy population, published between January 2018 and June 2019. We will randomly sort titles and abstracts and screen them until we identify 50 eligible SRs. The first reported meta-analysis of a binary or continuous outcome in each SR (the ‘index meta-analysis’) will be evaluated. We will extract from study reports all study effect estimates that were eligible for inclusion in the index meta-analyses (e.g. from multiple instruments and time points) and will quantify and test for evidence of selective inclusion of results. We will also assess the risk of bias due to missing results in the index meta-analyses using a new tool (ROB-ME). Ethics and dissemination: Ethics approval is not required because information will only be extracted from published studies. Dissemination of the results will be through peer-reviewed publications and presentations at conferences. We will make all data collected from this study publicly available via the Open Science Framework.

scholarly journals Investigation of Risk Of Bias due to Unreported and SelecTively included results in meta-analyses of nutrition research: the ROBUST study protocol

F1000Research ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 1760
Author(s):  
Matthew J. Page ◽  
Lisa Bero ◽  
Cynthia M. Kroeger ◽  
Zhaoli Dai ◽  
Sally McDonald ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Included Study ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Dietary Guidelines ◽  
Healthy Population ◽  
Nutrition Research ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background: Dietary guidelines should be informed by systematic reviews (SRs) of the available scientific evidence. However, if the SRs that underpin dietary guidelines are flawed in their design, conduct or reporting, the recommendations contained therein may be misleading or harmful. To date there has been little empirical investigation of bias due to selective inclusion of results, and bias due to missing results, in SRs of food/diet-outcome relationships. Objectives: To explore in SRs with meta-analyses of the association between food/diet and health-related outcomes: (i) whether systematic reviewers selectively included study effect estimates in meta-analyses when multiple effect estimates were available; (ii) what impact selective inclusion of study effect estimates may have on meta-analytic effects, and; (iii) the risk of bias due to missing results (publication bias and selective non-reporting bias) in meta-analyses. Methods: We will systematically search for SRs with meta-analysis of the association between food/diet and health-related outcomes in a generally healthy population, published between January 2018 and June 2019. We will randomly sort titles and abstracts and screen them until we identify 50 eligible SRs. The first reported meta-analysis of a binary or continuous outcome in each SR (the ‘index meta-analysis’) will be evaluated. We will extract from study reports all study effect estimates that were eligible for inclusion in the index meta-analyses (e.g. from multiple instruments and time points) and will quantify and test for evidence of selective inclusion of results. We will also assess the risk of bias due to missing results in the index meta-analyses using a new tool (ROB-ME). Ethics and dissemination: Ethics approval is not required because information will only be extracted from published studies. Dissemination of the results will be through peer-reviewed publications and presentations at conferences. We will make all data collected from this study publicly available via the Open Science Framework.

scholarly journals The Influence of Early Nutrition on Brain Growth and Neurodevelopment in Extremely Preterm Babies: A Narrative Review

Nutrients ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. 2029 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara E. Cormack ◽  
Jane E. Harding ◽  
Steven P. Miller ◽  
Frank H. Bloomfield
Keyword(s):  
Current Knowledge ◽  
Narrative Review ◽  
Neurodevelopmental Outcomes ◽  
Nutrition Research ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Extremely Preterm ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Preterm Babies ◽  
The Many ◽  
Meta Analyses

Extremely preterm babies are at increased risk of less than optimal neurodevelopment compared with their term-born counterparts. Optimising nutrition is a promising avenue to mitigate the adverse neurodevelopmental consequences of preterm birth. In this narrative review, we summarize current knowledge on how nutrition, and in particular, protein intake, affects neurodevelopment in extremely preterm babies. Observational studies consistently report that higher intravenous and enteral protein intakes are associated with improved growth and possibly neurodevelopment, but differences in methodologies and combinations of intravenous and enteral nutrition strategies make it difficult to determine the effects of each intervention. Unfortunately, there are few randomized controlled trials of nutrition in this population conducted to determine neurodevelopmental outcomes. Substantial variation in reporting of trials, both of nutritional intakes and of outcomes, limits conclusions from meta-analyses. Future studies to determine the effects of nutritional intakes in extremely preterm babies need to be adequately powered to assess neurodevelopmental outcomes separately in boys and girls, and designed to address the many potential confounders which may have clouded research findings to date. The development of minimal reporting sets and core outcome sets for nutrition research will aid future meta-analyses.

scholarly journals Systematic reviews and meta-analysis in nutrition research

2019 ◽  
Vol 122 (11) ◽  
pp. 1279-1294 ◽  
Author(s):  
George A. Kelley ◽  
Kristi S. Kelley
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Technical Information ◽  
Major Elements ◽  
Future Research ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Nutrition Research ◽  
Production And Consumption ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Meta Analyses

AbstractThere exists an ever-increasing number of systematic reviews, with or without meta-analysis, in the field of nutrition. Concomitant with this increase is the increased use of such to guide future research as well as both practice and policy-based decisions. Given this increased production and consumption, a need exists to educate both producers and consumers of systematic reviews, with or without meta-analysis, on how to conduct and evaluate high-quality reviews of this nature in nutrition. The purpose of this paper is to try and address this gap. In the present manuscript, the different types of systematic reviews, with or without meta-analyses, are described as well as the description of the major elements, including methodology and interpretation, with a focus on nutrition. It is hoped that this non-technical information will be helpful to producers, reviewers and consumers of systematic reviews, with or without meta-analysis, in the field of nutrition.

Completeness of reporting for systematic reviews of point-of-care ultrasound: a meta-research study

2021 ◽  
pp. bmjebm-2020-111652
Author(s):  
Ross Prager ◽  
Michael Pratte ◽  
Andrew Guy ◽  
Sudarshan Bala ◽  
Roudi Bachar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Full Text ◽  
Research Study ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Point Of Care Ultrasound ◽  
Test Accuracy ◽  
Subgroup Analyses ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Completeness Of Reporting

ObjectivesSystematic reviews are often considered among the highest quality of evidence. Completely reported systematic reviews, however, are required so readers can assess for generalisability of the research to practice and risk of bias. The objective of this study was to assess the completeness of reporting for systematic reviews assessing the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses for Diagnostic Test Accuracy (PRISMA-DTA) checklist that was published in 2018.Design and settingIn this meta-research study, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases were searched, with no date restriction, on March 1st, 2020 for systematic reviews assessing the diagnostic accuracy of POCUS. Adherence to PRISMA-DTA for the main text and abstract was scored independently and in duplicate using a modified checklist. Prespecified subgroup analyses were performed.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the mean PRISMA-DTA checklist adherence for the full-text and abstract.ResultsA total of 71 studies published from 2008 to 2020 met the inclusion criteria. The overall adherence for the full-text was moderate: 19.8 out of 26.0 items (76%) and for the abstract was 7.0 out of 11.0 items (64%). Although many items in the PRISMA-DTA checklist were frequently reported, several were r infrequently reported (<33% of studies), including item 5 (protocol registration), item D2 (minimally acceptable test accuracy) and item 14 (variability in target condition, index test and reference standards). Subgroup analyses showed a higher PRISMA-DTA mean adherence (SD) for high impact journals (20.9 (2.52) vs 18.9 (1.95); p<0.001), studies including supplemental materials (20.6 (2.48) vs 18.9 (2.28); p=0.004), studies citing adherence to PRISMA reporting guidelines (20.4 (1.95) vs 19.0 (3.00); p=0.038) and studies published in journals endorsing PRISMA guidelines (20.2 (2.47) vs 18.6 (2.37); p=0.025). There was variable adherence based on journal of publication (p=0.006), but not for study population (adult vs paediatric vs mixed) (p=0.62), year of publication (p=0.94), body region (p=0.78) or country (p=0.40). There was no variability in abstract adherence based on whether the abstract was structured with subheadings or not (p=0.25). A Spearman’s correlation found moderate correlation between higher word counts and abstractand full-text adherence (R=0.45, p<0.001 and R=0.38, p=0.001), respectively.ConclusionsOverall, the reporting of POCUS diagnostic accuracy systematic reviews and meta-analyses was moderate. We identified deficits in several key areas including the preregistration of systematic reviews in an online repository, handling of multiple definitions of target conditions, index tests and reference standards and specifying minimally acceptable test accuracy. Prospective registration of reviews and detailed reporting as per PRISMA-DTA during the research process could improve reporting completeness. At an editorial level, word count and supplemental material limitations may impede reporting completeness, whereas endorsement of reporting guidelines on journal websites could improve reporting.

scholarly journals A Novel Meta-Analytic Approach with Applications to Nutrition Research: A Comprehensive Analysis of Sodium Restriction (OR06-05-19)

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zung Tran ◽  
Anna Ivashchenko ◽  
Kate Yzquierdo ◽  
David Seres
Keyword(s):  
Sodium Intake ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Epidemiological Data ◽  
Dietary Sodium ◽  
Innovative Technology ◽  
Sodium Restriction ◽  
Medical Topic ◽  
Intelligent Software ◽  
Nutrition Research ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Objectives Since the application of meta-analysis to biomedical research, the breadth of evidence covered in published meta-analyses has diminished. Despite the imperative of literature reviews to present “state of the art” knowledge, current meta-analyses are confined to pooling only select evidence. Imposing a priori criteria on scientific evidence results in biased and myopic conclusions. These current practices, in addition to the vastness of the literature base, ensure that research evidence remains opaque, and unusable to guide research and clinical practice. For example, whether and how much dietary sodium should be restricted for healthy or at-risk populations remains controversial. New epidemiological data suggest a striking increase in mortality with sodium intake <3 g/day, confounding this discussion. Thus, a system enabling investigators to access, review, and interpret all evidence is needed. Methods MedAware Systems, Inc. is a platform that continuously identifies, extracts and organizes medical research data from multiple repositories. A blinded, cross-validated data extraction process, using artificial intelligence, guides two research scientists to process each study with near 100% accuracy. Intelligent software compares each data field for matches, prompting a senior scientist to review and reconcile any mismatched data fields. Over 200 methodological and clinical parameters are coded and organized, supporting comprehensive meta-analytic reviews of any medical topic. We demonstrate this innovative technology by addressing the effects of dietary sodium intake. We identify and analyze the complete domain of studies pertaining to sodium intake and cardiovascular outcomes. Results To date, 368 studies have been identified. Initial review of patients, interventions, and outcomes data show extreme heterogeneity of this literature domain. This confirms the need for comprehensive evidence review, data extraction, and pooling. Conclusions Sodium intake literature is vast and difficult to interpret. We introduce a comprehensive process to analyze thousands of studies that traditional approaches cannot match. Our database and meta-analytic methodology profile the domain of evidence, summarizing the diversity and efficacy of sodium restriction recommendations. Funding Sources MedAware Systems, Inc.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document