Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34605544›Full record

ArticleThe American journal of clinical nutrition2022

NUQUEST-NUtrition QUality Evaluation Strengthening Tools: development of tools for the evaluation of risk of bias in nutrition studies.

Shannon E Kelly, Linda S Greene-Finestone, Elizabeth A Yetley, Karima Benkhedda, Stephen P J Brooks, George A Wells, Amanda J MacFarlane

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The American journal of clinical nutrition, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. 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

7 authors.

Shannon E KellyCardiovascular Research Methods Centre, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Linda S Greene-FinestoneApplied Research Division, Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Elizabeth A YetleyUS NIH (retired), Bethesda, MD, USA.
Karima BenkheddaBureau of Nutritional Sciences, Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Stephen P J BrooksBureau of Nutritional Sciences, Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
George A WellsCardiovascular Research Methods Centre, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Amanda J MacFarlaneBureau of Nutritional Sciences, Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-3208-3483

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDietary exposure assessments are a critical issue in evaluating human nutrition studies; however, nutrition-specific criteria are not consistently included in existing bias assessment tools.

objectivesOur objective was to develop a set of risk of bias (RoB) tools that integrated nutrition-specific criteria into validated generic assessment tools to address RoB issues, including those specific to dietary exposure assessment.

methodsThe Nutrition QUality Evaluation Strengthening Tools (NUQUEST) development and validation process included 8 steps. The first steps identified 1) a development strategy; 2) generic assessment tools with demonstrated validity; and 3) nutrition-specific appraisal issues. This was followed by 4) generation of nutrition-specific items and 5) development of guidance to aid users of NUQUEST. The final steps used established ratings of selected studies and feedback from independent raters to 6) assess reliability and validity; 7) assess formatting and usability; and 8) finalize NUQUEST.

resultsNUQUEST is based on the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network checklists for randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies. Using a purposive sample of 45 studies representing the 3 study designs, interrater reliability was high (Cohen's κ: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.52, 0.93) across all tools and at least moderate for individual tools (range: 0.57-1.00). The use of a worksheet improved usability and consistency of overall interrater agreement across all study designs (40% without worksheet, 80%-100% with worksheet). When compared to published ratings, NUQUEST ratings for evaluated studies demonstrated high concurrent validity (93% perfect or near-perfect agreement). Where there was disagreement, the nutrition-specific component was a contributing factor in discerning exposure methodological issues.

conclusionsNUQUEST integrates nutrition-specific criteria with generic criteria from assessment tools with demonstrated reliability and validity. NUQUEST represents a consistent and transparent approach for evaluating RoB issues related to dietary exposure assessment commonly encountered in human nutrition studies.

Indexed as

BiasEpidemiologic MethodsNutrition AssessmentChecklistHumansNutritional SciencesReproducibility of ResultsResearch Designcase-control studycohort studynutritionquality assessment instrumentrandomized controlled trialrisk of bias tool

Identifiers

PMID34605544
PMCPMC8755056

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.