Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24425715›Full record

ReviewAdvances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.)2014

Limitations of observational evidence: implications for evidence-based dietary recommendations.

Kevin C Maki, Joanne L Slavin, Tia M Rains, Penny M Kris-Etherton

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 74 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
74citing papers in PubMed, 11 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

74 citing papers in PubMed, 11 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. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

14 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Kevin C MakiDepartment of Metabolic Sciences, Biofortis Clinical Research, Addison, IL.
Joanne L Slavin
Tia M Rains
Penny M Kris-Etherton

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide the strongest evidence for establishing relations between exposures, including dietary exposures, and health outcomes. However, not all diet and health outcome relations can be practically or ethically evaluated by using RCTs; therefore, many dietary recommendations are supported by evidence primarily from observational data, particularly those from prospective cohort studies. Although such evidence is of critical importance, limitations are often underappreciated by nutrition scientists and policymakers. This editorial review is intended to 1) highlight some of these limitations of observational evidence for diet-disease relations, including imprecise exposure quantification, collinearity among dietary exposures, displacement/substitution effects, healthy/unhealthy consumer bias, residual confounding, and effect modification; and 2) advocate for greater caution in the communication of dietary recommendations for which RCT evidence of clinical event reduction after dietary intervention is not available.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based PracticeHealth PromotionModels, BiologicalNutrition PolicyConfounding Factors, EpidemiologicDietHumansNutrition DisordersObservational Studies as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRecommended Dietary Allowances

Identifiers

PMID24425715
PMCPMC3884102

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.