ArticlePublic health nutrition2021
Changing landscape of nutrition and dietetics research? A bibliographic analysis of top-tier published research in 1998 and 2018.
Article in Public health nutrition, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Learning health systems to implement chronic disease prevention programs: A novel framework and perspectives from an Australian health service.Learning health systems · 2024Article
- A bibliographic review of sustainability research output and investment in 10 leading public health journals across three time periods.Public health in practice (Oxford, England) · 2023Review
- Addressing schoolteacher food and nutrition-related health and wellbeing: a scoping review of the food and nutrition constructs used across current research.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2023Article
- Describing the evidence-base for research engagement by health care providers and health care organisations: a scoping review.BMC health services research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe current study sought to describe and compare study type, research design and translation phase of published research in nutrition and dietetic journals in 1998 and 2018.
designThis was a repeat cross-sectional bibliographic analysis of Nutrition and Dietetics research. All eligible studies in the top eight Nutrition and Dietetics indexed journals in 1998 and 2018 were included. Two independent reviewers coded each study for research design (study type and study design) and translation phase (T0-T4) of the research using seminal texts in the field.
settingNot relevant.
participantsNot relevant.
resultsThe number of publications (1998, n 1030; 2018, n 1016) has not changed over time, but the research type, design and translation phases have. The proportion of intervention studies in 1998 (43·8 %) was significantly higher than 2018 (19·4 %). In 2018, more reviews (46·9 % v. 15·6 % in 1998) and less randomised trials (14·3 % v. 37·8 % in 1998) were published. In regard to translation phase, there was a higher proportion of T2-T4 research in 2018 (18·3 % v. 3·8 % in 1998); however, the proportion of T3/T4 (dissemination, implementation and population-level research) research was still low (<3 %). Our sensitivity analysis with the four journals that remained in the top eight journal across the two time periods found no differences in the research type, design and translation phases across time.
conclusionsThere was a reduction in intervention and T0 publications, alongside higher publication of clinical study designs over time; however, published T3/T4 research in Nutrition and Dietetics is low. A greater focus on publishing interventions and dissemination and implementation may be needed.
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.