ReviewAdvances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.)2014
How can the scientific community support the generation of the evidence needed to improve the quality of guidelines for micronutrient interventions?
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 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Improved micronutrient status and health outcomes in low- and middle-income countries following large-scale fortification: evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis.The American journal of clinical nutrition · 2019Pooled it
- Using Novel Multimethod Evaluation Approaches to Understand Complex Food System Interventions: Insights from a Supply Chain Intervention Intended to Improve Nutrition.Current developments in nutrition · 2024Article
- Food Fortification With Folic Acid for Prevention of Spina Bifida and Anencephaly: The Need for a Paradigm Shift in Evidence Evaluation for Policy-Making.American journal of epidemiology · 2021Article
- Improving the adaptability of WHO evidence-informed guidelines for nutrition actions: results of a mixed methods evaluation.Implementation science : IS · 2017Article
- Why is multiple micronutrient powder ineffective at reducing anaemia among 12-24 month olds in Colombia? Evidence from a randomised controlled trial.SSM - population health · 2016Article
- Theory-Driven Process Evaluation of the SHINE Trial Using a Program Impact Pathway Approach.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2015Article
- From biological to program efficacy: promoting dialogue among the research, policy, and program communities.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2014Review
- The role of The Cochrane Collaboration in support of the WHO Nutrition Guidelines.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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The process used by the WHO to generate nutrition recommendations relies on high-quality research evidence, and this makes new demands on the research questions that nutrition scientists address. As a researcher involved in WHO nutrition guidelines development, my objective is to suggest ways in which our research can adapt to meet these demands. Randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews generate the highest quality of evidence to support strong recommendations, yet even these methods leave controversies in which judgments must be made. Using examples from recent research and guidelines, 4 issues are highlighted that illustrate ways in which nutrition research can adapt to become more useful and informative to global nutrition guidelines. These issues include embedding mechanistic research within trials, explicit choice of design along the efficacy or effectiveness spectrum, anticipation of heterogeneity of effects, and the need for research on consumer or community values and preferences.
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.