Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35028518›Full record

SynthesisBMJ nutrition, prevention & health2021

Assessments of risk of bias in systematic reviews of observational nutritional epidemiologic studies are often not appropriate or comprehensive: a methodological study.

Dena Zeraatkar, Alana Kohut, Arrti Bhasin, Rita E Morassut, Isabella Churchill, Arnav Gupta, Daeria Lawson, Anna Miroshnychenko, Emily Sirotich, Komal Aryal and 3 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ nutrition, prevention & health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

13 authors.

Dena ZeraatkarBiomedical Informatics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4287-0541
Alana KohutMcMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Arrti BhasinHealth Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Rita E MorassutSchulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
Isabella ChurchillHealth Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Arnav GuptaDepartment of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Daeria LawsonHealth Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Anna MiroshnychenkoHealth Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Emily SirotichHealth Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Komal AryalHealth Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Maria AzabMcMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Joseph BeyeneHealth Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Russell J de SouzaHealth Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAn essential component of systematic reviews is the assessment of risk of bias. To date, there has been no investigation of how reviews of non-randomised studies of nutritional exposures (called 'nutritional epidemiologic studies') assess risk of bias.

objectiveTo describe methods for the assessment of risk of bias in reviews of nutritional epidemiologic studies.

methodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Jan 2018-Aug 2019) and sampled 150 systematic reviews of nutritional epidemiologic studies.

resultsMost reviews (n=131/150; 87.3%) attempted to assess risk of bias. Commonly used tools neglected to address all important sources of bias, such as selective reporting (n=25/28; 89.3%), and frequently included constructs unrelated to risk of bias, such as reporting (n=14/28; 50.0%). Most reviews (n=66/101; 65.3%) did not incorporate risk of bias in the synthesis. While more than half of reviews considered biases due to confounding and misclassification of the exposure in their interpretation of findings, other biases, such as selective reporting, were rarely considered (n=1/150; 0.7%).

conclusionReviews of nutritional epidemiologic studies have important limitations in their assessment of risk of bias.

Indexed as

dietary patternsnutritional treatmentnutrition assessment

Identifiers

PMID35028518
PMCPMC8718856

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.