SynthesisPublic health nutrition2018
Sex consideration in diet-biomarker-related indices: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Public health nutrition, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association of dietary inflammatory index with ocular diseases: a population-based cross-sectional study.European journal of medical research · 2025Article
- Sex-Specific Variation in Metabolic Responses to Diet.Nutrients · 2024Review
- Association of main meal quality index with the odds of metabolic syndrome in Iranian adults: a cross-sectional study.BMC nutrition · 2023Article
- Association between Neu5Gc carbohydrate and serum antibodies against it provides the molecular link to cancer: French NutriNet-Santé study.BMC medicine · 2020Article
- Dietary Patterns Related to Triglyceride and High-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol and the Incidence of Type 2 Diabetes in Korean Men and Women.Nutrients · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveAn index of biomarkers derived from dietary factors (diet-biomarker-related index) identifies foods and nutrients that encompass physiological potentials and provides scientific evidence for dietary patterns that increase the risk of disease associated with specific biomarkers. Although men and women have different dietary patterns and physiological characteristics, sex is not often considered when investigators develop a diet-biomarker-related index. We aimed to review whether epidemiological studies developed diet-biomarker-related indices in a sex-specific way.
designWe systematically searched for epidemiological studies that developed diet-biomarker-related indices, including (i) biomarker prediction indices that include dietary factors as explanatory variables and (ii) dietary patterns to explain biomarker variations, in the PubMed and EMBASE databases. We qualitatively reviewed the sex consideration in index development.
resultsWe identified seventy-nine studies that developed a diet-biomarker-related index. We found that fifty-four studies included both men and women. Of these fifty-four studies, twenty-nine (53·7 %) did not consider sex, eleven (20·3 %) included sex in the development model, seven (13·0 %) considered sex but did not include sex in the development model, and seven (13·0 %) derived a diet-biomarker-related index for men and women separately. A list of selected dietary factors that explained levels of biomarkers generally differed by sex in the studies that developed a diet-biomarker-related index in a sex-specific way.
conclusionsMost studies that included both men and women did not develop the diet-biomarker-related index in a sex-specific way. Further research is needed to identify whether a sex-specific diet-biomarker-related index is more predictive of the disease of interest than an index without sex consideration.
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.