Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27422509›Full record

SynthesisAdvances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.)2016

Creating the Future of Evidence-Based Nutrition Recommendations: Case Studies from Lipid Research.

Johanna T Dwyer, Kristin H Rubin, Kevin L Fritsche, Tricia L Psota, DeAnn J Liska, William S Harris, Scott J Montain, Barbara J Lyle

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. 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

8 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.

Johanna T DwyerTufts Medical Center, Schools of Medicine and Nutrition Science and Policy, and Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University, Boston, MA;
Kristin H RubinKraft Heinz Company, Glenview, IL;
Kevin L FritscheUniversity of Missouri, Columbia, MO;ORCID 0000-0002-0740-3801
Tricia L PsotaUSDA Center for Nutrition and Policy Promotion, Alexandria, VA;
DeAnn J LiskaBiofortis Research, Addison, IL;
William S HarrisOmegaQuant Analytics, LLC, Sioux Falls, SD; University of South Dakota School of Medicine, Sioux Falls, SD;ORCID 0000-0003-3042-9353
Scott J MontainUnited States Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine, Natick, MA; and.
Barbara J LyleSchool of Professional Studies, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL and North American Branch of the International Life Sciences Institute, Washington, DC lyleinc@att.net.ORCID 0000-0002-0362-7736
Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion · USCrystal Technology and Industries (United States) · USKraft Heinz (United States) · USNorthwestern University · USTufts University · USUniversity of Missouri · USUniversity of South Dakota · USU.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Strategic translational research is designed to address research gaps that answer specific guidance questions. It provides translational value with respect to nutrition guidance and regulatory and public policy. The relevance and the quality of evidence both matter in translational research. For example, design decisions regarding population, intervention, comparator, and outcome criteria affect whether or not high-quality studies are considered relevant to specific guidance questions and are therefore included as evidence within the context of systematic review frameworks used by authoritative food and health organizations. The process used in systematic reviews, developed by the USDA for its Nutrition Evidence Library, is described. An eating pattern and cardiovascular disease (CVD) evidence review is provided as an example, and factors that differentiated the studies considered relevant and included in that evidence base from those that were excluded are noted. Case studies on ω-3 (n-3) fatty acids (FAs) and industrial trans-FAs illustrate key factors vital to relevance and translational impact, including choice of a relevant population (e.g., healthy, at risk, or diseased subjects; general population or high-performance soldiers); dose and form of the intervention (e.g., food or supplement); use of relevant comparators (e.g., technically feasible and realistic); and measures for both exposure and outcomes (e.g., inflammatory markers or CVD endpoints). Specific recommendations are provided to help increase the impact of nutrition research on future dietary guidance, policy, and regulatory issues, particularly in the area of lipids.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based MedicineNutritional SciencesRecommended Dietary AllowancesResearch DesignTranslational Research, BiomedicalCardiovascular DiseasesDietFatty Acids, Omega-3Feeding BehaviorHumansReview Literature as TopicTrans Fatty AcidsUnited StatesUnited States Department of AgricultureFatty Acids, Omega-3Trans Fatty Acidsdietary guidelinesfatty acidslipid metabolismpublic policysystematic review

Identifiers

PMID27422509
PMCPMC4942859
OpenAlexW2461915304

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.