ArticlePloS one2011
Funding source and research report quality in nutrition practice-related research.
Article in PloS one, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Exploring the Role of Extra Virgin Olive Oil (EVOO) in MASLD: Evidence from Human Consumption.Nutrients · 2025Pooled it
- Micronutrients in HIV: a Bayesian meta-analysis.PloS one · 2015Pooled it
- Completeness of intervention reporting of nutrition-focused weight management interventions adjunct to metabolic and bariatric surgery: effect of the TIDieR checklist.International journal of obesity (2005) · 2024Review
- 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
- Article
- Beyond nutrition and physical activity: food industry shaping of the very principles of scientific integrity.Globalization and health · 2021Review
- Scientific rigor and credibility in the nutrition research landscape.The American journal of clinical nutrition · 2018Article
- Article
- Ocular gene transfer in the spotlight: implications of newspaper content for clinical communications.BMC medical ethics · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe source of funding is one of many possible causes of bias in scientific research. One method of detecting potential for bias is to evaluate the quality of research reports. Research exploring the relationship between funding source and nutrition-related research report quality is limited and in other disciplines the findings are mixed.
objectiveThe purpose of this study is to determine whether types of funding sources of nutrition research are associated with differences in research report quality.
designA retrospective study of research reporting quality, research design and funding source was conducted on 2539 peer reviewed research articles from the American Dietetic Association's Evidence Analysis Library® database.
resultsQuality rating frequency distributions indicate 43.3% of research reports were rated as positive, 50.1% neutral, and 6.6% as negative. Multinomial logistic regression results showed that while both funding source and type of research design are significant predictors of quality ratings (χ2 = 118.99, p≤0.001), the model's usefulness in predicting overall research report quality is little better than chance. Compared to research reports with government funding, those not acknowledging any funding sources, followed by studies with University/hospital funding were more likely to receive neutral vs positive quality ratings, OR = 1.85, P <0.001 and OR = 1.54, P<0.001, respectively and those that did not report funding were more likely to receive negative quality ratings (OR = 4.97, P<0.001). After controlling for research design, industry funded research reports were no more likely to receive a neutral or negative quality rating than those funded by government sources.
conclusionResearch report quality cannot be accurately predicted from the funding source after controlling for research design. Continued vigilance to evaluate the quality of all research regardless of the funding source and to further understand other factors that affect quality ratings are warranted.
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.