ArticleBMC medical research methodology2018
Methods for trustworthy nutritional recommendations NutriRECS (Nutritional Recommendations and accessible Evidence summaries Composed of Systematic reviews): a protocol.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of seven popular structured dietary programmes and risk of mortality and major cardiovascular events in patients at increased cardiovascular risk: systematic review and network meta-analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2023Pooled it
- Toward strong, transparent and science-based dietary guidance: lessons learned from the Mediterranean Diet guideline development.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Review
- Saturated fat and human health: a protocol for a methodologically innovative systematic review and meta-analysis to inform public health nutrition guidelines.Systematic reviews · 2023Article
- Food-based dietary guidelines in Spain: an assessment of their methodological quality.European journal of clinical nutrition · 2022Review
- Governing evidence use in the nutrition policy process: evidence and lessons from the 2020 Canada food guide.Nutrition reviews · 2022Article
- 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
- Predictors of Higher Quality of Systematic Reviews Addressing Nutrition and Cancer Prevention.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Health Related Values and Preferences Regarding Meat Intake: A Cross-Sectional Mixed-Methods Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Values and Preferences Related to Cancer Risk among Red and Processed Meat Eaters: A Pilot Cross-Sectional Study with Semi-Structured Interviews.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- How fragile are Mediterranean diet interventions? A research-on-research study of randomised controlled trials.BMJ nutrition, prevention & health · 2021Article
- Knowledge gaps in understanding the metabolic and clinical effects of excess folates/folic acid: a summary, and perspectives, from an NIH workshop.The American journal of clinical nutrition · 2020Article
- Evaluating adults' health-related values and preferences about unprocessed red meat and processed meat consumption: protocol for a cross-sectional mixed-methods study.F1000Research · 2020Article
- Correction to: Methods for trustworthy nutritional recommendations NutriRECS (Nutritional Recommendations and accessible Evidence summaries Composed of Systematic reviews): a protocol.BMC medical research methodology · 2019Article
- Updating the Food-Based Dietary Guidelines for the Spanish Population: The Spanish Society of Community Nutrition (SENC) Proposal.Nutrients · 2019Article
- The Philosophy of Evidence-Based Principles and Practice in Nutrition.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
11 authors at 7 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecent systematic reviews and editorials suggest that many organizations that produce nutritional guideline recommendations do not adhere to internationally recognized standards set forth by the Institute of Medicine (IoM), Guidelines International Network (GIN), Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE), and Grading Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).
methodsThe potential solution is an independent group with content expertise and skilled in the methodology of systematic reviews and practice guidelines to produce trustworthy guideline recommendations, recommendations that are supported by publication in a top tier journal. The BMJ Rapid Recommendations project has recently demonstrated the feasibility and utility of this approach. Here, we are proposing trustworthy nutritional guideline recommendations based on internationally accepted guideline development standards, recommendations that will be informed by rigorous and novel systematic reviews of the benefits and harms associated with nutritional exposures, as well as studies on the values and preferences related to dietary behaviors among members of the international community. DISCUSSION: Adhering to international guideline standards, conducting high quality systematic reviews, and actively assessing the values and preferences of key stakeholders is expected to improve the quality of nutritional guidelines and their relevance to end-users, particularly patients and community members. We will send our work for peer review, and if found acceptable, we will publish our nutritional recommendations in top-tier general medicine journals.
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.