Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33377996›Full record

ReviewEuropean journal of nutrition2021

Improving the trustworthiness of findings from nutrition evidence syntheses: assessing risk of bias and rating the certainty of evidence.

Lukas Schwingshackl, Holger J Schünemann, Joerg J Meerpohl

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 22 pooled it
8.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 22 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 72 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Air Pollution and Brain Tumors in Children. A Systematic Review.Current environmental health reports · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it
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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Lukas SchwingshacklFaculty of Medicine, Institute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. schwingshackl@ifem.uni-freiburg.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3407-7594
Holger J SchünemannDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Joerg J MeerpohlFaculty of Medicine, Institute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
University of Freiburg · DEImpact · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Systematic Reviews as TopicBiasHumansObservational Studies as TopicRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsDietary guidelinesGRADEMeta-analysisNutrition evidenceRisk of biasSystematic reviewsTrustworthiness

Identifiers

PMID33377996
PMCPMC8354882
OpenAlexW3114003436

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.