ReviewAdvances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.)2017
Perspective: Essential Study Quality Descriptors for Data from Nutritional Epidemiologic Research.
Review in Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Colonization Ability and Impact on Human Gut Microbiota of Foodborne Microbes From Traditional or Probiotic-Added Fermented Foods: A Systematic Review.Frontiers in nutrition · 2021Pooled it
- NUQUEST-NUtrition QUality Evaluation Strengthening Tools: development of tools for the evaluation of risk of bias in nutrition studies.The American journal of clinical nutrition · 2022Article
- An Ontology to Standardize Research Output of Nutritional Epidemiology: From Paper-Based Standards to Linked Content.Nutrients · 2019Article
- Perspective: Limiting Dependence on Nonrandomized Studies and Improving Randomized Trials in Human Nutrition Research: Why and How.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2018Article
- ONS: an ontology for a standardized description of interventions and observational studies in nutrition.Genes & nutrition · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
36 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pooled analysis of secondary data increases the power of research and enables scientific discovery in nutritional epidemiology. Information on study characteristics that determine data quality is needed to enable correct reuse and interpretation of data. This study aims to define essential quality characteristics for data from observational studies in nutrition. First, a literature review was performed to get an insight on existing instruments that assess the quality of cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies and dietary measurement. Second, 2 face-to-face workshops were organized to determine the study characteristics that affect data quality. Third, consensus on the data descriptors and controlled vocabulary was obtained. From 4884 papers retrieved, 26 relevant instruments, containing 164 characteristics for study design and 93 characteristics for measurements, were selected. The workshop and consensus process resulted in 10 descriptors allocated to "study design" and 22 to "measurement" domains. Data descriptors were organized as an ordinal scale of items to facilitate the identification, storage, and querying of nutrition data. Further integration of an Ontology for Nutrition Studies will facilitate interoperability of data repositories.
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.