Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33240921›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2020

Self-Selection Bias: An Essential Design Consideration for Nutrition Trials in Healthy Populations.

Lauren M Young, Sarah Gauci, Andrew Scholey, David J White, Andrew Pipingas

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in nutrition, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

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

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

5 authors.

Lauren M YoungCentre for Human Psychopharmacology, School of Health Sciences, Swinburne University, Hawthorn, VIC, Australia.
Sarah GauciCentre for Human Psychopharmacology, School of Health Sciences, Swinburne University, Hawthorn, VIC, Australia.
Andrew ScholeyCentre for Human Psychopharmacology, School of Health Sciences, Swinburne University, Hawthorn, VIC, Australia.
David J WhiteCentre for Human Psychopharmacology, School of Health Sciences, Swinburne University, Hawthorn, VIC, Australia.
Andrew PipingasCentre for Human Psychopharmacology, School of Health Sciences, Swinburne University, Hawthorn, VIC, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many researchers have identified the issue of self-selection bias hindering the ability to detect nutrient effects in healthy populations. However, it appears that no effort has been made to mitigate this potential design flaw. By recruiting individuals on the basis of pre-trial dietary intake, the Memory and Attention Supplementation Trial aimed to capture a cohort of participants with a wide variety of dietary intake, thus increasing the likelihood of a diverse range of nutrient status. This perspective specifically examines the profile of these trial volunteers and in doing so, we present the first empirical evidence of self-selection bias when recruiting healthy volunteers for a randomized controlled trial of a nutrient-based supplement. These findings support the anecdotal proposal that traditional recruitment methods inherently attract trial volunteers who are vastly unrepresentative of the population and threatens the generalizability of this field of research. Alternative approaches to recruitment, including

Indexed as

nutrient effectsnutrient statusrandomized controlled trialsself-selection biasstudy design

Identifiers

PMID33240921
PMCPMC7683507

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.