Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34526355›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2021

Evaluating agreement between bodies of evidence from randomised controlled trials and cohort studies in nutrition research: meta-epidemiological study.

Lukas Schwingshackl, Sara Balduzzi, Jessica Beyerbach, Nils Bröckelmann, Sarah S Werner, Jasmin Zähringer, Blin Nagavci, Joerg J Meerpohl

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 10 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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. 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. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors.

Lukas SchwingshacklInstitute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Centre - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany schwingshackl@ifem.uni-freiburg.de.ORCID 0000-0003-3407-7594
Sara BalduzziInstitute of Medical Biometry and Statistics, Medical Centre - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, Freiburg, Germany.
Jessica BeyerbachInstitute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Centre - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Nils BröckelmannInstitute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Centre - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Sarah S WernerInstitute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Centre - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Jasmin ZähringerInstitute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Centre - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Blin NagavciInstitute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Centre - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Joerg J MeerpohlInstitute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Centre - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate the agreement between diet-disease effect estimates of bodies of evidence from randomised controlled trials and those from cohort studies in nutrition research, and to investigate potential factors for disagreement.

designMeta-epidemiological study. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Medline. REVIEW

methodsPopulation, intervention or exposure, comparator, outcome (PI/ECO) elements from a body of evidence from cohort studies (BoE(CS)) were matched with corresponding elements of a body of evidence from randomised controlled trials (BoE(RCT)). Pooled ratio of risk ratios or difference of mean differences across all diet-disease outcome pairs were calculated. Subgroup analyses were conducted to explore factors for disagreement. Heterogeneity was assessed through I

results97 diet-disease outcome pairs (that is, matched BoE(RCT) and BoE(CS)) were identified overall. For binary outcomes, the pooled ratio of risk ratios comparing estimates from BoE(RCT) with BoE(CS) was 1.09 (95% confidence interval 1.04 to 1.14; I

conclusionOn average, the difference in pooled results between estimates from BoE(RCT) and BoE(CS) was small. But wide prediction intervals and some substantial statistical heterogeneity in cohort studies indicate that important differences or potential bias in individual comparisons or studies cannot be excluded. Observed differences were mainly driven by dissimilarities in population, intervention or exposure, comparator, and outcome. These findings could help researchers further understand the integration of such evidence into prospective nutrition evidence syntheses and improve evidence based dietary guidelines.

Indexed as

Cohort StudiesDietHumansNutrientsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSystematic Reviews as TopicNutrients

Identifiers

PMID34526355
PMCPMC8441535

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.