Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32298420›Full record

ArticleAdvances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.)2020

Reproducibility of A Posteriori Dietary Patterns across Time and Studies: A Scoping Review.

Valeria Edefonti, Roberta De Vito, Andrea Salvatori, Francesca Bravi, Linia Patel, Michela Dalmartello, Monica Ferraroni

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
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.

Valeria EdefontiBranch of Medical Statistics, Biometry, and Epidemiology "G. A. Maccacaro", Department of Clinical Sciences and Community Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.
Roberta De VitoDepartment of Biostatistics, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA.
Andrea SalvatoriBranch of Medical Statistics, Biometry, and Epidemiology "G. A. Maccacaro", Department of Clinical Sciences and Community Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.
Francesca BraviBranch of Medical Statistics, Biometry, and Epidemiology "G. A. Maccacaro", Department of Clinical Sciences and Community Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.
Linia PatelBranch of Medical Statistics, Biometry, and Epidemiology "G. A. Maccacaro", Department of Clinical Sciences and Community Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.
Michela DalmartelloBranch of Medical Statistics, Biometry, and Epidemiology "G. A. Maccacaro", Department of Clinical Sciences and Community Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.
Monica FerraroniBranch of Medical Statistics, Biometry, and Epidemiology "G. A. Maccacaro", Department of Clinical Sciences and Community Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Few studies have considered if a posteriori dietary patterns (DPs) are generalizable across different centers or studies, or if they are consistently seen over time. To date, no systematic search of the literature on these topics has been carried out. A scoping review was conducted through a systematic search on the PubMed database. In the current review, we included the 34 articles examining the extent to which a posteriori DPs were consistently seen: 1) across centers from the same study or across different studies potentially representing different populations or countries (here indicated as cross-study reproducibility) and 2) over longer time periods (i.e., ≥2 y) (here indicated as stability over time). Selected articles (published in 1981-2019, 32% from 2010 onwards) were based on observational studies, mostly from Europe and North America. Five articles were based on children and/or adolescents and 14 articles included adults (2 men; 12 women, of whom 3 were pregnant women). A posteriori DPs were mostly derived (32 articles) with principal component or factor analyses. Among the 9 articles assessing DP reproducibility across studies (number of centers/studies: 2-27; median: 3), 5 provided a formal assessment using statistical methods (4 index-based approaches of different complexity, 1 statistical model). A median of 4 DPs was reproduced across centers/studies (range: 1-7). Among the 25 articles assessing DP stability over time (number of time-occasions: 2-6; median: 3), 19 provided a formal assessment with statistical methods (17 index-based and/or test-based approaches, 1 statistical model, 1 with both strategies). The number and composition of DPs remained mostly stable over time. Based on the limited evidence collected, most identified DPs showed good reproducibility across studies and stability over time. However, when present within the single studies, the criteria for the formal assessment of cross-study reproducibility or stability over time were generally very basic.

Indexed as

DietFeeding BehaviorAdolescentAdultChildEuropeFemaleHumansMaleNorth AmericaPregnancyReproducibility of Resultsa posteriori dietary patternscluster analysisconsistency of dietary patternscross-study reproducibility of dietary patternsfactor analysisgeneralizability of dietary patternsreproducibility of dietary patternsreproducibility of dietary patterns across studiesstability of dietary patterns over time

Identifiers

PMID32298420
PMCPMC7490165

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.