ArticleEuropean journal of nutrition2015
Response to Letter to the editor from Dr. Kawada regarding the article Dietary glycaemic load and cognitive performance in elderly subjects.
Article in European journal of nutrition, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In his offered opinion piece, (Dietary glycaemic load and cognitive performance in elderly subjects) Dr. Kawada comments upon the statistical analysis and suggests that the conclusions of the study should be interpreted with caution. Having closely examined these comments, we believe that they are over-stated and we draw different conclusions. At first viewing, the statistical arguments put forward by Dr. Kawada look complicated, but one may summarize that he believes the analysis lacked statistical power. This argument is directed towards two sets of regression analyses, a Poisson analysis on which one of the messages of the paper hinges, and a second logistic analysis that was acknowledged as statistically underpowered in our publication. No statistical argument is provided as to why the Poisson regression model is underpowered; the critique contains no new scientific content but relies on a technical re-iteration of the limitations of the study (that were highlighted in the original manuscript) combined with quasi philosophical arguments on data set size and the need for biochemical markers in observational dietary studies.
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.