Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28605476›Full record

ReviewNutrition reviews2017

Challenges in conducting clinical nutrition research.

Connie M Weaver, Joshua W Miller

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nutrition reviews, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 65 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
65citing papers in PubMed, 12 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

65 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. The effect of blended tube feeding compared to conventional formula on clinical outcomes in adults: A systematic review.Nutrition & dietetics : the journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

5 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

2 authors.

Connie M WeaverDepartment of Nutrition Science, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA. Department of Nutritional Sciences, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.
Joshua W MillerDepartment of Nutrition Science, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA. Department of Nutritional Sciences, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical nutrition research has played a pivotal role in establishing causality between diet or nutrient intake and health outcome measures and in the determination of dietary requirements and levels of supplementation to achieve specific outcomes. Because the studies are performed with humans, clinical nutrition research can be readily translated into public health messages. However, there are many challenges and considerations unique to the field, such as the baseline nutritional status of study participants, defining appropriate control groups, effective blinding of participants and investigators, the evolving ethics of randomized control trials, and a tension in a priori decisions regarding inclusion of nutritionally vulnerable participants versus representative samples of general populations. Regulatory approvals that place increasing burdens on the ability of investigators to carry out and complete research protocols have grown dramatically in recent years. There is much room for improved efficiency in the approval and reporting processes aimed at protecting volunteers and providing transparency to the public. Decreased redundancy would have a direct benefit to clinical nutrition research and investigators. Despite these challenges, the information to be gained and the rewards of clinical nutrition research remain high.

Indexed as

Research DesignAnimalsDietDisease Models, AnimalHumansNutritional SciencesRandomized Controlled Trials as Topicclinical nutrition researchdietary interventionsdietary supplementshuman study ethicshuman study regulationsinstitutional review boardsrandomized control trials

Identifiers

PMID28605476
PMCPMC5654371

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.