Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19022948›Full record

SynthesisThe Journal of nutrition2008

Application of systematic review methodology to the field of nutrition.

Alice H Lichtenstein, Elizabeth A Yetley, Joseph Lau

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Journal of nutrition, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 19 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 19 pooled it
9.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 19 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 135 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Guideline
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Vitamin D and type 2 diabetes: a systematic review.European journal of clinical nutrition · 2011
    Pooled it
  17. Fruit and vegetable intake and bone health in women aged 45 years and over: a systematic review.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2011
    Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Alice H LichtensteinCardiovascular Nutrition Laboratory, Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging, Tufts University, Boston, MA 02111, USA. alice.lichtenstein@tufts.edu
Elizabeth A Yetley
Joseph Lau
Office of Dietary Supplements · USTufts Medical Center · USTufts University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Systematic reviews represent a rigorous and transparent approach to synthesizing scientific evidence that minimizes bias. They evolved within the medical community to support development of clinical and public health practice guidelines, set research agendas, and formulate scientific consensus statements. The use of systematic reviews for nutrition-related topics is more recent. Systematic reviews provide independently conducted comprehensive and objective assessments of available information addressing precise questions. This approach to summarizing available data is a useful tool for identifying the state of science including knowledge gaps and associated research needs, supporting development of science-based recommendations and guidelines, and serving as the foundation for updates as new data emerge. Our objective is to describe the steps for performing systematic reviews and highlight areas unique to the discipline of nutrition that are important to consider in data assessment. The steps involved in generating systematic reviews include identifying staffing and planning for outside expert input, forming a research team, developing an analytic framework, developing and refining research questions, defining eligibility criteria, identifying search terms, screening abstracts according to eligibility criteria, retrieving articles for evaluation, constructing evidence and summary tables, assessing methodological quality and applicability, and synthesizing results including performing meta-analysis, if appropriate. Unique and at times challenging, nutrition-related considerations include baseline nutrient exposure, nutrient status, bioequivalence of bioactive compounds, bioavailability, multiple and interrelated biological functions, undefined nature of some interventions, and uncertainties in intake assessment. Systematic reviews are a valuable and independent component of decision-making processes by groups responsible for developing science-based recommendations and policies.

Indexed as

Nutritional SciencesBiological AvailabilityCardiovascular DiseasesDatabases, FactualData Interpretation, StatisticalFatty Acids, Omega-3HumansMeta-Analysis as TopicNutritional StatusResearch DesignSystems BiologyFatty Acids, Omega-3

Identifiers

PMID19022948
PMCPMC3415860
OpenAlexW2793354692

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.