ArticleWorld journal of methodology2015
Conflicts of interest in nutritional sciences: The forgotten bias in meta-analysis.
Article in World journal of methodology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Effectiveness of Partnerships With Commercial Actors to Improve Food Environments: A Systematic Review.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2025Pooled it
- Complete financial disclosure for improved transparency in nutrition communication.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- What principles should guide interactions between population health researchers and the food industry? Systematic scoping review of peer-reviewed and grey literature.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2019Article
- Perspective: NutriGrade: A Scoring System to Assess and Judge the Meta-Evidence of Randomized Controlled Trials and Cohort Studies in Nutrition Research.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2016Article
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
Awareness of conflicts of interest (COI) in medicine began in the 1980s. More recently, the problem has gained notoriety in nutritional sciences. COI with industry could bias study conclusions in the context of research activities and scientific publications on nutritional sciences. The issue of COI in nutritional sciences deserves more attention and requires careful analyses as biased information can negatively impact the development of dietary guidelines and, ultimately, population health. Decision-making is generally based on available, published evidence, but when the results are ambivalent, it is easier to opt for the status quo and ask for more studies. Readers might wonder if research is subsidized by industry as a counterbalancing strategy based on levels of evidence-only to slow down eminent positions and/or legislation on the food sector? How can this problem be overcome without producing paranoia and McCarthyism while trying to be as methodological as possible?
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.