Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33277278›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2020

Association of food industry ties with findings of studies examining the effect of dairy food intake on cardiovascular disease and mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Nicholas Chartres, Alice Fabbri, Sally McDonald, Joanna Diong, Joanne E McKenzie, Lisa Bero

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

6 authors.

Nicholas ChartresCharles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9659-6739
Alice FabbriCentre for Evidence-Based Medicine Odense (CEBMO), Odense University Hospital, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Sally McDonaldCharles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Joanna DiongFaculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Joanne E McKenzieSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Lisa BeroCharles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia lisa.bero@sydney.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0003-1893-6651

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine if the association of dairy foods with cardiovascular disease (CVD) outcomes differs between studies with food industry ties versus those without industry ties. To determine whether studies with or without industry ties differ in their risk of bias. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included cohort and case-control studies that estimated the association of dairy foods with CVD outcomes in healthy adults. INFORMATION SOURCES: We searched eight databases on 1 February 2019 from 2000 to 2019 and hand searched reference lists. RISK OF BIAS: We used the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomised Studies-of Exposure tool. INCLUDED STUDIES: 43 studies (3 case-controls, 40 cohorts). SYNTHESIS OF

resultsThere was no clear evidence of an association between studies with industry ties (1/14) versus no industry ties (8/29) and the reporting of favourable results, risk ratio (RR)=0.26 (95% CI 0.04 to 1.87; n=43 studies) and studies with industry ties (4/14) versus no industry ties (11/29) and favourable conclusions, RR=0.75 (95% CI 0.29 to 1.95; n=43). Studies with industry sponsorship, (HR=0.78; n=3 studies) showed a decreased magnitude of risk of CVD outcomes compared with studies with no industry sponsorship (HR=0.97; n=18) (ratio of HRs 0.80 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.97); p=0.03). STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF EVIDENCE: Every study had an overall high risk of bias rating; this was primarily due to confounding.

interpretationThere was no clear evidence of an association between studies with food industry ties and the reporting of favourable results and conclusions compared with studies without industry ties. The statistically significant difference in the magnitude of effects identified in industry-sponsored studies compared with non-industry-sponsored studies, however, is important in quantifying industry influence on studies included in dietary guidelines. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019129659.

Indexed as

Cardiovascular DiseasesEatingFood IndustryHumansPublication Biasnutrition & dieteticspublic healthstatistics & research methods

Identifiers

PMID33277278
PMCPMC7722392

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.