Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26797219›Full record

ArticleEpidemiology and health2016

Comparison of methods of extracting information for meta-analysis of observational studies in nutritional epidemiology.

Jong-Myon Bae

Open access · diamondAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Epidemiology and health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Breast Density and Risk of Breast Cancer in Asian Women: A Meta-analysis of Observational Studies.Journal of preventive medicine and public health = Yebang Uihakhoe chi · 2016
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jong-Myon BaeDepartment of Preventive Medicine, Jeju National University School of Medicine, Jeju, Korea.
Jeju National University · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesA common method for conducting a quantitative systematic review (QSR) for observational studies related to nutritional epidemiology is the "highest versus lowest intake" method (HLM), in which only the information concerning the effect size (ES) of the highest category of a food item is collected on the basis of its lowest category. However, in the interval collapsing method (ICM), a method suggested to enable a maximum utilization of all available information, the ES information is collected by collapsing all categories into a single category. This study aimed to compare the ES and summary effect size (SES) between the HLM and ICM.

methodsA QSR for evaluating the citrus fruit intake and risk of pancreatic cancer and calculating the SES by using the HLM was selected. The ES and SES were estimated by performing a meta-analysis using the fixed-effect model. The directionality and statistical significance of the ES and SES were used as criteria for determining the concordance between the HLM and ICM outcomes.

resultsNo significant differences were observed in the directionality of SES extracted by using the HLM or ICM. The application of the ICM, which uses a broader information base, yielded more-consistent ES and SES, and narrower confidence intervals than the HLM.

conclusionsThe ICM is advantageous over the HLM owing to its higher statistical accuracy in extracting information for QSR on nutritional epidemiology. The application of the ICM should hence be recommended for future studies.

Indexed as

DietCitrusEpidemiologic MethodsHumansMeta-Analysis as TopicNutritional StatusObservational Studies as TopicPancreatic NeoplasmsResearch DesignHeterogeneityMeta-analysisNutrition assessmentQuality evaluation

Identifiers

PMID26797219
PMCPMC4751349
OpenAlexW2264490385

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.