ArticleAdvances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.)2022
Evaluating Concordance of Bodies of Evidence from Randomized Controlled Trials, Dietary Intake, and Biomarkers of Intake in Cohort Studies: A Meta-Epidemiological Study.
Article in Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 4 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Synthesis methods used to combine observational studies and randomised trials in published meta-analyses.Systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Healthcare outcomes assessed with observational study designs compared with those assessed in randomized trials: a meta-epidemiological study.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled 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
- Dietary fibre in hypertension and cardiovascular disease management: systematic review and meta-analyses.BMC medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Concordance between nutritional cohorts and randomized trials: biological confirmation or statistical consequence? A re-analysis of Stadelmaier et al.BMC medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Evaluating agreement between evidence from randomised controlled trials and cohort studies in nutrition: a meta-research replication study.European journal of epidemiology · 2024Article
- Novel Lines of Research on the Environmental and Human Health Impacts of Nut Consumption.Nutrients · 2023Review
- Observational studies of traditional Chinese medicine may provide evidence nearly consistent with the randomized controlled trials: A meta-epidemiological study.Integrative medicine research · 2022Article
- The Relative Merits of Observational and Experimental Research: Four Key Principles for Optimising Observational Research Designs.Nutrients · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We aimed to identify and compare empirical data to determine the concordance of diet-disease effect estimates of bodies of evidence (BoE) from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), dietary intake, and biomarkers of dietary intake in cohort studies (CSs). The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and MEDLINE were searched for systematic reviews (SRs) of RCTs and SRs of CSs that investigated both dietary intake and biomarkers of intake published between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2019. For matched diet-disease associations, the concordance between results from the 3 different BoE was analyzed using 2 definitions: qualitative (e.g., 95% CI within a predefined range) and quantitative (test hypothesis on the z score). Moreover, the differences in the results coming from BoERCTs, BoECSs dietary intake, and BoECSs biomarkers were synthesized to get a pooled ratio of risk ratio (RRR) across all eligible diet-disease associations, so as to compare the 3 BoE. Overall, 49 diet-disease associations derived from 41 SRs were identified and included in the analysis. Twenty-four percent, 10%, and 39% of the diet-disease associations were qualitatively concordant comparing BoERCTs with BoECSs dietary intake, BoERCTs with BoECSs biomarkers, and comparing both BoE from CSs, respectively; 88%, 69%, and 90% of the diet-disease associations were quantitatively concordant comparing BoERCTs with BoECSs dietary intake, BoERCTs with BoECSs biomarkers, and comparing both BoE from CSs, respectively. The pooled RRRs comparing effects from BoERCTs with effects from BoECSs dietary intake were 1.09 (95% CI: 1.06, 1.13) and 1.18 (95% CI: 1.10, 1.25) compared with BoECSs biomarkers. Comparing both BoE from CSs, the difference in the results was also small (RRR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.88, 0.96). Our findings suggest that BoE from RCTs and CSs are often quantitatively concordant. Prospective SRs in nutrition research should include, whenever possible, BoE from RCTs and CSs on dietary intake and biomarkers of intake to provide the whole picture for an investigated diet-disease association.
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.