ReviewEuropean journal of nutrition2021
Improving the trustworthiness of findings from nutrition evidence syntheses: assessing risk of bias and rating the certainty of evidence.
Review in European journal of nutrition, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 22 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
38 citing papers in PubMed, 22 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 72 citations in OpenAlex.
- Air Pollution and Brain Tumors in Children. A Systematic Review.Current environmental health reports · 2026Pooled it
- Dietary Sugar Intake and Incident Type 2 Diabetes Risk: A Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-Analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2025Pooled it
- Methods of diagnosis and rehabilitation of dysphagia in patients with spinal cord injury: a systematic review.European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Evaluating agreement between individual nutrition randomised controlled trials and cohort studies - a meta-epidemiological study.BMC medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Protein intake and cancer: an umbrella review of systematic reviews for the evidence-based guideline of the German Nutrition Society.European journal of nutrition · 2024Pooled it
- Technology-Based Music Interventions to Reduce Anxiety and Pain Among Patients Undergoing Surgery or Procedures: Systematic Review of the Literature.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2024Pooled it
- Dietary protein and blood pressure: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and evaluation of the evidence.European journal of nutrition · 2024Pooled it
- Protein intake and type 2 diabetes mellitus: an umbrella review of systematic reviews for the evidence-based guideline for protein intake of the German Nutrition Society.European journal of nutrition · 2024Pooled it
- Air pollutants and ovarian reserve: a systematic review of the evidence.Frontiers in public health · 2024Pooled it
- Commercial Chinese polyherbal preparation Zao Ren An Shen prescription for primary insomnia: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Protein intake and risk of urolithiasis and kidney diseases: an umbrella review of systematic reviews for the evidence-based guideline of the German Nutrition Society.European journal of nutrition · 2023Pooled it
- Effects of Dairy Intake on Markers of Cardiometabolic Health in Adults: A Systematic Review with Network Meta-Analysis.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2023Pooled it
- The Effect of Regular Consumption of Reformulated Breads on Glycemic Control: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2023Pooled it
- Sustainable Diets and Cancer: a Systematic Review.Current nutrition reports · 2022Pooled it
- An Empirical Evaluation of the Impact Scenario of Pooling Bodies of Evidence from Randomized Controlled Trials and Cohort Studies in Nutrition Research.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2022Pooled it
- Relation of Change or Substitution of Low- and No-Calorie Sweetened Beverages With Cardiometabolic Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies.Diabetes care · 2022Pooled it
- Dietary glycemic index, glycemic load and cancer risk: a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies.European journal of nutrition · 2022Pooled it
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of Hibiscus sabdariffa on blood pressure and cardiometabolic markers.Nutrition reviews · 2022Pooled it
- The rates and measurement of adherence to acamprosate in randomised controlled clinical trials: A systematic review.PloS one · 2022Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Suboptimal diet is recognized as a leading modifiable risk factor for non-communicable diseases. Non-randomized studies (NRSs) with patient relevant outcomes provide many insights into diet-disease relationships. Dietary guidelines are based predominantly on findings from systematic reviews of NRSs-mostly prospective observational studies, despite that these have been repeatedly criticized for yielding potentially less trustworthy results than randomized controlled trials (RCTs). It is assumed that these are a result of bias due to prevalent-user designs, inappropriate comparators, residual confounding, and measurement error. In this article, we aim to highlight the importance of applying risk of bias (RoB) assessments in nutritional studies to improve the credibility of evidence of systematic reviews. First, we discuss the importance and challenges of dietary RCTs and NRSs, and provide reasons for potentially less trustworthy results of dietary studies. We describe currently used tools for RoB assessment (Cochrane RoB, and ROBINS-I), describe the importance of rigorous RoB assessment in dietary studies and provide examples that further the understanding of the key issues to overcome in nutrition research. We then illustrate, by comparing the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach with current approaches used by United States Department of Agriculture Dietary Guidelines for Americans, and the World Cancer Research Fund, how to establish trust in dietary recommendations. Our overview shows that the GRADE approach provides more transparency about the single domains for grading the certainty of the evidence and the strength of recommendations. Despite not increasing the certainty of evidence itself, we expect that the rigorous application of the Cochrane RoB and the ROBINS-I tools within systematic reviews of both RCTs and NRSs and their integration within the GRADE approach will strengthen the credibility of dietary recommendations.
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.