ArticleThe American journal of clinical nutrition2018
Scientific rigor and credibility in the nutrition research landscape.
Article in The American journal of clinical nutrition, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.
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
21 citing papers in PubMed.
- The knowledge, attitudes, and practices of thoracic surgical nurses towards postoperative pulmonary rehabilitation.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Advice to early career nutritionists on working in and with the food industry.Nutrition bulletin · 2025Article
- Complete financial disclosure for improved transparency in nutrition communication.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Unacceptable use of substandard metrics in policy decisions which mandate large reductions in animal-source foods.NPJ science of food · 2024Review
- Article
- Poor Reporting Quality in Basic Nutrition Research: A Case Study Based on a Scoping Review of Recent Folate Research in Mouse Models (2009-2021).Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2022Article
- Guidelines to lower intake of added sugar are necessary and justified.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2022Article
- Article
- An Updated Framework for Industry Funding of Food and Nutrition Research: Managing Financial Conflicts and Scientific Integrity.The Journal of nutrition · 2022Article
- A practical decision tree to support editorial adjudication of submitted parallel cluster randomized controlled trials.Obesity (Silver Spring, Md.) · 2022Article
- Characterisation, procedures and heritability of acute dietary intake in the Twins UK cohort: an observational study.Nutrition journal · 2022Observational
- Governing evidence use in the nutrition policy process: evidence and lessons from the 2020 Canada food guide.Nutrition reviews · 2022Article
- A guide for authors and readers of the American Society for Nutrition Journals on the proper use of P values and strategies that promote transparency and improve research reproducibility.The American journal of clinical nutrition · 2021Article
- Metabolism-based therapies for epilepsy: new directions for future cures.Annals of clinical and translational neurology · 2021Review
- Persistent confusion in nutrition and obesity research about the validity of classic nonparametric tests in the presence of heteroscedasticity: evidence of the problem and valid alternatives.The American journal of clinical nutrition · 2021Article
- Evidence of misuse of nonparametric tests in the presence of heteroscedasticity within obesity research.F1000Research · 2021Review
- Measuring health promotion: translating science into policy.European journal of nutrition · 2020Article
- Article
- High impact nutrition and dietetics journals' use of publication procedures to increase research transparency.Research integrity and peer review · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Scientific progress depends on the quality and credibility of research methods. As discourse on rigor, transparency, and reproducibility joins the cacophony of nutrition information and misinformation in mass media, buttressing the real and perceived reliability of nutrition science is more important than ever. This broad topic was the focus of a 2016 plenary session, "Scientific Rigor and Competing Interests in the Nutrition Research Landscape." This article summarizes and expands on this session in an effort to increase understanding and dialogue with regard to factors that limit the real and perceived reliability of nutrition science and steps that can be taken to mitigate those factors. The end goal is to both earn and merit greater trust in nutrition science by both the scientific community and the general public. The authors offer suggestions in each of the domains of education and training, communications, research conduct, and procedures and policies to help achieve this goal. The authors emphasize the need for adequate funding to support these efforts toward greater rigor and transparency, which will be resource demanding and may require either increased research funding or the recognition that a greater proportion of research funding may need to be allocated to these tasks.
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.