Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30515273›Full record

ReviewNutrition research and practice2018

Evidence-based approaches for establishing the 2015 Dietary Reference Intakes for Koreans.

Sangah Shin, Subeen Kim, Hyojee Joung

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nutrition research and practice, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Association of urinary chlorophenols with central obesity in Korean girls.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2021
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
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

3 authors.

Sangah ShinDepartment of Food and Nutrition, Chung-Ang University, 4726, Seodong-daero, Daedeok-myeon, Anseong, Gyeonggi-do 17546, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0094-1014
Subeen KimDepartment of Public Health, Graduate School of Public Health, Seoul National University, Seoul 08826, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4056-6925
Hyojee JoungDepartment of Food and Nutrition, Chung-Ang University, 4726, Seodong-daero, Daedeok-myeon, Anseong, Gyeonggi-do 17546, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1182-7786

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

objectivesThe Dietary Reference Intakes for Koreans (KDRIs), a set of reference intake values, have served as a basis for guiding a balanced diet that promotes health and prevents disease in the general Korean population. In the process of developing DRIs, a systematic review has played an important role in helping the DRI committees make evidence-based and transparent decisions for updating the next DRIs. Thus, the 2015 KDRI steering committee applied the systematic review framework to the revision process of the KDRIs. The purpose of this article is to summarize the revision process for the 2015 KDRIs by focusing on the systematic review framework. MATERIALS/

methodsThe methods used to develop the systematic review framework for 2015 KDRIs followed the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and the Tufts Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC). The framework for systematic review of the 2015 KDRIs comprised of the 3 following steps: (1) development of an analytic framework and refinement of key questions and search terms; (2) literature search and data extraction; and, (3) appraisal of the literature and summarizing the results.

resultsA total of 203,237 studies were retrieved through the above procedure, with 2,324 of these studies included in the analysis. General information, main results, comments of reviewers, and results of quality assessment were extracted and organized by study design. The average points of quality appraisals were 3.0 (range, 0-5) points for intervention, 6.1 (0-9) points for cohort, 6.0 (3-9) points for nested case-control, 5.4 (1-8) points for case-control, 14.6 (0-22) points for cross-sectional studies, and 7.0 (0-11) points for reviews.

conclusionsSystematic review helped to establish the 2015 KDRIs as a useful tool for evidence-based approach. Collaborative efforts to improve the framework for systematic review should be continued for future KDRIs.

Indexed as

Dietary reference intakes for Koreansevidence-basedsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID30515273
PMCPMC6277316

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.