Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32612492›Full record

ReviewFood & nutrition research2020

The Nordic Nutrition Recommendations 2022 - handbook for qualified systematic reviews.

Erik Kristoffer Arnesen, Jacob Juel Christensen, Rikke Andersen, Hanna Eneroth, Maijaliisa Erkkola, Anne Høyer, Eva Warensjö Lemming, Helle Margrete Meltzer, Þórhallur Ingi Halldórsson, Inga Þórsdóttir and 3 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Food & nutrition research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing 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

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

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

13 authors.

Erik Kristoffer ArnesenDepartment of Nutrition, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Jacob Juel ChristensenDepartment of Nutrition, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Rikke AndersenNational Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark (DTU), Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark.
Hanna EnerothThe Swedish Food Agency, Uppsala, Sweden.
Maijaliisa ErkkolaDepartment of Food and Nutrition, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Anne HøyerThe Norwegian Directorate of Health, Oslo, Norway.
Eva Warensjö LemmingThe Swedish Food Agency, Uppsala, Sweden.
Helle Margrete MeltzerDepartment of Environmental Health, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Þórhallur Ingi HalldórssonSchool of Health Sciences, University of Iceland, Reykjavík, Iceland.
Inga ÞórsdóttirSchool of Health Sciences, University of Iceland, Reykjavík, Iceland.
Ursula SchwabDepartment of Medicine, Endocrinology and Clinical Nutrition, Kuopio University Hospital, Kuopio, Finland, and Institute of Public Health and Clinical Nutrition, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio Campus, Kuopio, Finland.
Ellen TrolleNational Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark (DTU), Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark.
Rune BlomhoffDepartment of Nutrition, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSystematic reviews (SRs) constitute a major part of the Nordic Nutrition Recommendations (NNRs). The step-by-step procedure used to develop SRs has evolved considerably over time and is often tailored to fit the exposure and outcomes in focus.

objectiveTo describe a detailed procedure for developing qualified SRs commissioned by the NNR2022 project.

designScrutinizing procedures of recent SRs commissioned by leading national food and health authorities or international food and health organizations.

resultsThe following eight steps must be included when developing qualified SRs for the NNR2022 project: 1) define research question, 2) protocol development, 3) literature search, 4) screening and selection of studies, 5) data extraction, 6) assessing risk of bias, 7) synthesis and grading of total strength of evidence, and 8) reporting according to certain standards. DISCUSSION: This guide is based on the guidelines developed for the fifth edition of NNR but includes some important new domains in order to adhere to more recent, authoritative standards.

conclusionAll qualified SRs in the NNR2022 project will follow the protocol described here.

Indexed as

dietary reference valuesevidence-based nutritionfood-based dietary guidelinesnational food and health authoritiesNordic and Baltic countriesnutrient recommendationssystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID32612492
PMCPMC7307435

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.