ReviewNutrition reviews2020
Evidence mapping to assess the available research on fiber, whole grains, and health.
Review in Nutrition reviews, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Evidence mapping is a useful methodology for characterizing existing research on a broad topic and identifying gaps in the scientific literature. Evidence mapping entails conducting a systematic literature search and extracting information on study details, often in the form of a database. Researchers at Tufts University and the North American branch of the International Life Sciences Institute created the Diet-Related Fibers & Human Health Outcomes Database, which is publicly available and updated annually. The database captures intervention studies examining dietary fiber and 10 predefined physiological health outcomes, including weight/adiposity, blood pressure, gut microbiota, and bone health. The database and subsequent potential for evidence mapping may be particularly useful in light of new food labeling requirements by the US Food and Drug Administration that require fibers to have accepted scientific evidence of a physiological health benefit in order to be labeled as "dietary fiber." Following the success of the fiber database, Tufts University and the General Mills Bell Institute of Health and Nutrition collaborated to develop a whole grain database and evidence map. This work successfully highlighted the need for better consistency in how whole grains are reported with respect to amount and type of whole grains and intervention compliance.
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.