ArticleThe American journal of clinical nutrition2009
Reporting of systematic reviews of micronutrients and health: a critical appraisal.
Article in The American journal of clinical nutrition, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- 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 · 2011Pooled it
- Bioactive Compounds and their Therapeutic Potential in Gastrointestinal Disease.Current drug research reviews · 2026Review
- Completeness of Reporting in Diet- and Nutrition-Related Randomized Controlled Trials and Systematic Reviews With Meta-Analysis: Protocol for 2 Independent Meta-Research Studies.JMIR research protocols · 2023Article
- Bioactive compounds for human and planetary health.Frontiers in nutrition · 2023Review
- NUQUEST-NUtrition QUality Evaluation Strengthening Tools: development of tools for the evaluation of risk of bias in nutrition studies.The American journal of clinical nutrition · 2022Article
- MMiDaS-AE: Multi-modal Missing Data aware Stacked Autoencoder for Biomedical Abstract Screening.Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Health, Inference, and Learning · 2020Article
- Article
- Options for basing Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs) on chronic disease endpoints: report from a joint US-/Canadian-sponsored working group.The American journal of clinical nutrition · 2017Review
- Chromium supplements for glycemic control in type 2 diabetes: limited evidence of effectiveness.Nutrition reviews · 2016Review
- Executive summary: Evaluating the evidence base to support the inclusion of infants and children from birth to 24 mo of age in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans--"the B-24 Project".The American journal of clinical nutrition · 2014Article
- Empirical evaluation of meta-analytic approaches for nutrient and health outcome dose-response data.Research synthesis methods · 2013Article
- Reporting of health promotion research: addressing the quality gaps in iran.Health promotion perspectives · 2012Article
- Article
- Semi-automated screening of biomedical citations for systematic reviews.BMC bioinformatics · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe quality of nutrition-related systematic reviews (SRs) is an unstudied but important factor affecting their usefulness.
objectivesThe objectives were to evaluate the reporting quality of published SRs and to identify areas of improvement.
designDescriptive and exploratory analyses of the reporting quality (7 nutrition items and 28 SR reporting items) of all English-language SRs published through July 2007 linking micronutrients and health outcomes in humans were conducted. Factors that may be associated with reporting quality were also evaluated.
resultsWe identified 141 eligible SRs of 21 micronutrients. Ninety SRs that included only interventional studies met a higher proportion of our reporting criteria (median: 62%; interquartile range: 51%, 72%) than did 31 SRs with only observational studies (median: 53%; interquartile range: 47%, 60%) or 20 SRs with both study designs (median: 47%; interquartile range: 39%, 52%) (P < 0.001). SRs published after consensus reporting standards (since 2003) met a higher proportion of the reporting criteria than did earlier SRs (median: 59% compared with 50%; P = 0.01); however, the reporting of nutrition variables remained unchanged (median: 38% compared with 33%; P = 0.7). The least-reported nutrition criteria were baseline nutrient exposures (28%) and effects of measurement errors from nutrition exposures (24%). Only 58 SRs (41%) used quality scales or checklists to assess the methodologic quality of the primary studies included.
conclusionsThe reporting quality of SRs has improved 3 y after publication of SR reporting standards, but the reporting of nutrition variables has not. Improved adherence to consensus methods and reporting standards should improve the utility of nutrition SRs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.