Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35683993›Full record

ReviewNutrients2022

Statistical Methods for the Analysis of Food Composition Databases: A Review.

Yusentha Balakrishna, Samuel Manda, Henry Mwambi, Averalda van Graan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nutrients, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. 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

4 authors.

Yusentha BalakrishnaBiostatistics Research Unit, South African Medical Research Council, Durban 4001, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0001-6449-3260
Samuel MandaSchool of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg 3201, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0002-9672-3312
Henry MwambiSchool of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg 3201, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0001-9654-400X
Averalda van GraanBiostatistics Research Unit, SAFOODS Division, South African Medical Research Council, Cape Town 8001, South Africa.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Evidence-based knowledge of the relationship between foods and nutrients is needed to inform dietary-based guidelines and policy. Proper and tailored statistical methods to analyse food composition databases (FCDBs) could assist in this regard. This review aims to collate the existing literature that used any statistical method to analyse FCDBs, to identify key trends and research gaps. The search strategy yielded 4238 references from electronic databases of which 24 fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Information on the objectives, statistical methods, and results was extracted. Statistical methods were mostly applied to group similar food items (37.5%). Other aims and objectives included determining associations between the nutrient content and known food characteristics (25.0%), determining nutrient co-occurrence (20.8%), evaluating nutrient changes over time (16.7%), and addressing the accuracy and completeness of databases (16.7%). Standard statistical tests (33.3%) were the most utilised followed by clustering (29.1%), other methods (16.7%), regression methods (12.5%), and dimension reduction techniques (8.3%). Nutrient data has unique characteristics such as correlated components, natural groupings, and a compositional nature. Statistical methods used for analysis need to account for this data structure. Our summary of the literature provides a reference for researchers looking to expand into this area.

Indexed as

NutrientsNutrition PolicyCluster AnalysisDatabases, FactualFoodFood AnalysisNutrientsclusteringdimension reductionfood composition databasenutrient databaseregressionreviewstatistical methods

Identifiers

PMID35683993
PMCPMC9182527

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.