ReviewAdvances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.)2014
The role of The Cochrane Collaboration in support of the WHO Nutrition Guidelines.
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 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, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Towards a new model for producing evidence-based guidelines: a qualitative study of current approaches and opportunities for innovation among Australian guideline developers.F1000Research · 2019Pooled it
- Scope and quality of Cochrane reviews of nutrition interventions: a cross-sectional study.Nutrition journal · 2017Pooled it
- Consideration of sex and gender in Cochrane reviews of interventions for preventing healthcare-associated infections: a methodology study.BMC health services research · 2019Article
- Improving the adaptability of WHO evidence-informed guidelines for nutrition actions: results of a mixed methods evaluation.Implementation science : IS · 2017Article
- 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
- A call to action to reshape evidence synthesis and use for nutrition policy.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016Article
- Evidence from Toxicology: The Most Essential Science for Prevention.Environmental health perspectives · 2016Article
- Considering the value of dietary assessment data in informing nutrition-related health policy.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2014Review
- From biological to program efficacy: promoting dialogue among the research, policy, and program communities.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article describes the background and contribution of The Cochrane Collaboration to the WHO Nutrition Guidelines program. Systematic reviews, augmented by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology for assessing the quality of a body of evidence, form the evidence basis for WHO guidelines. Our shared experience of working together has highlighted a number of issues that are challenging, such as decisions made about selecting appropriate questions for evidence synthesis and the nature of study types that are included, in particular the decision on whether or not to extend a search beyond randomized studies. Although the skills and experience required for evidence synthesis are different from those needed to determine recommendations for policy and practice, our experience suggests that some engagement between the two groups is mutually beneficial. Finally, our experience highlights the recognition that evidence of effectiveness is essential but by no means sufficient to guide decisions on recommendations. Programmatic and implementation considerations are important to guide decision making and the evidence basis for this may be limited; therefore, it is essential that groups involved in delivering interventions to populations are also engaged in the guidelines process.
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.