Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31110080›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2019

Association of industry ties with outcomes of studies examining the effect of wholegrain foods on cardiovascular disease and mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Nicholas Chartres, Alice Fabbri, Sally McDonald, Jessica Turton, Margaret Allman-Farinelli, Joanne McKenzie, Lisa Bero

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Incorporation of randomized controlled trials into organizational guidelines for obstetricians and gynecologists.European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Nicholas ChartresCharles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Alice FabbriCharles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Sally McDonaldCharles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Jessica TurtonCharles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Margaret Allman-FarinelliCharles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Joanne McKenzieSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Lisa BeroCharles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
University of Sydney · AUMonash University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine if observational studies examining the association of wholegrain foods with cardiovascular disease (CVD) with food industry sponsorship and/or authors with conflicts of interest (COI) with the food industry are more likely to have results and/or conclusions that are favourable to industry than those with no industry ties, and to determine whether studies with industry ties differ in their risk of bias compared with studies with no industry ties.

designSystematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. DATA SOURCES: We searched eight databases from 1997 to 2017 and hand searched the reference lists of included studies. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Cohort and case-control studies that quantitatively examined the association of wholegrains or wholegrain foods with CVD outcomes in healthy adults or children.

results21 of the 22 studies had a serious or critical risk of bias. Studies with industry ties more often had favourable results compared with those with no industry ties, but the Confidence Interval (CI) was wide, Risk Ratio (RR)=1.44 (95% CI 0.88 to 2.35). The same association was found for study conclusions. We did not find a difference in effect size (magnitude of RRs) between studies with industry ties, RR=0.77 (95% CI 0.58 to 1.01) and studies with no industry ties, RR=0.85 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.00) (p=0.50) I

conclusionsWe did not establish that the presence of food industry sponsorship or authors with a COI with the food industry was associated with results or conclusions that favour industry sponsors. The association of food industry sponsorship or authors with a COI with the food industry and favourable results or conclusions is uncertain. However, our analysis was hindered by the low level of COI disclosure in the included studies. Our findings support international reforms to improve the disclosure and management of COI in nutrition research. Without such disclosures, it will not be possible to determine if the results of nutrition research are free of food industry influences and potential biases. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017055841.

Indexed as

Food IndustryNutritional SciencesWhole GrainsCardiovascular DiseasesCase-Control StudiesConflict of InterestHumansNutritive ValueObservational Studies as TopicPublication BiasRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch Support as Topicbiasconflict of interestfood industryindustry sponsorshipnutrition

Identifiers

PMID31110080
PMCPMC6530454
OpenAlexW2945217440

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.