Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31598577›Full record

ArticleCurrent developments in nutrition2019

Methods for the Selection of Covariates in Nutritional Epidemiology Studies: A Meta-Epidemiological Review.

Dena Zeraatkar, Kevin Cheung, Kirolos Milio, Max Zworth, Arnav Gupta, Arrti Bhasin, Jessica J Bartoszko, Michel Kiflen, Rita E Morassut, Salmi T Noor and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current developments in nutrition, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Factors associated with constipation in critically ill children: A retrospective study.Nutrition in clinical practice : official publication of the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

14 authors.

Dena ZeraatkarDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Kevin CheungDepartment of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Kirolos MilioDepartment of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Max ZworthDepartment of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Arnav GuptaDepartment of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Arrti BhasinDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Jessica J BartoszkoDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Michel KiflenDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Rita E MorassutSchulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
Salmi T NoorDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Daeria O LawsonDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Bradley C JohnstonDepartment of Community Health and Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Shrikant I BangdiwalaDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Russell J de SouzaDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-8945-513X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundObservational studies provide important information about the effects of exposures that cannot be easily studied in clinical trials, such as nutritional exposures, but are subject to confounding. Investigators adjust for confounders by entering them as covariates in analytic models.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the reporting and credibility of methods for selection of covariates in nutritional epidemiology studies.

methodsWe sampled 150 nutritional epidemiology studies published in 2007/2008 and 2017/2018 from the top 5 high-impact nutrition and medical journals and extracted information on methods for selection of covariates.

resultsMost studies did not report selecting covariates a priori (94.0%) or criteria for selection of covariates (63.3%). There was general inconsistency in choice of covariates, even among studies investigating similar questions. One-third of studies did not acknowledge potential for residual confounding in their discussion.

conclusionStudies often do not report methods for selection of covariates, follow available guidance for selection of covariates, nor discuss potential for residual confounding.

Indexed as

confoundingcovariatemodel buildingnutritional epidemiologyresearch methods

Identifiers

PMID31598577
PMCPMC6778415

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.