Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21918218›Full record

SynthesisThe American journal of clinical nutrition2011

Quality of reviews on sugar-sweetened beverages and health outcomes: a systematic review.

Douglas L Weed, Michelle D Althuis, Pamela J Mink

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The American journal of clinical nutrition, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Douglas L WeedDLW Consulting Services LLC, El Prado, NM, USA.
Michelle D Althuis
Pamela J Mink

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMedical and public health decisions are informed by reviews, which makes the quality of reviews an important scientific concern.

objectiveWe systematically assessed the quality of published reviews on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) and health, which is a controversial topic that is important to public health.

designWe performed a search of PubMed and Cochrane databases and a hand search of reference lists. Studies that were selected were published reviews and meta-analyses (June 2001 to June 2011) of epidemiologic studies of the relation between SSBs and obesity, type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome, and coronary heart disease. A standardized data-abstraction form was used. Review quality was assessed by using the validated instrument AMSTAR (assessment of multiple systematic reviews), which is a one-page tool with 11 questions.

resultsSeventeen reviews met our inclusion and exclusion criteria: obesity or weight (16 reviews), diabetes (3 reviews), metabolic syndrome (3 reviews), and coronary heart disease (2 reviews). Authors frequently used a strictly narrative review (7 of 17 reviews). Only 6 of 17 reviews reported quantitative data in a table format. Overall, reviews of SSBs and health outcomes received moderately low-quality scores by the AMSTAR [mean: 4.4 points; median: 4 points; range: 1-8.5 points (out of a possible score of 11 points)]. AMSTAR scores were not related to the conclusions of authors (8 reviews reported an association with a mean AMSTAR score of 4.1 points; 9 reviews with equivocal conclusions scored 4.7 points; P value = 0.84). Less than one-third of published reviews reported a comprehensive literature search, listed included and excluded studies, or used duplicate study selection and data abstraction.

conclusionThe comprehensive reporting of epidemiologic evidence and use of systematic methodologies to interpret evidence were underused in published reviews on SSBs and health.

Indexed as

BeveragesHumansPublic HealthReview Literature as TopicSweetening AgentsSweetening Agents

Identifiers

PMID21918218
PMCPMC3192479

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.