ArticleHeliyon2024
Development, validation, and application of a South African Dietary Polyphenol Data Quality Assessment Tool.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is a wealth of South African scientific literature studying and reporting on dietary polyphenols in research articles and academic literature. The evaluation of data quality is critical to ensure polyphenol data compiled from various scientific journals and academic texts are acceptable in terms of compilation standards. This study aimed to develop, validate, and apply a country specific South African dietary polyphenol data quality assessment tool (SADPDQAT). The evaluation tool considered nine evaluation categories with a maximum score of 5. For each literature source assessed, a quality score and confidence code was assigned. Validation analysis revealed generally consistent results between raters with an average percentage agreement of 65 %, no scores falling outside of Bland-Altman limits of agreement and a moderate internal consistency α = 0.533 which was improved to 0.616. Applying the tool to 383 scientific studies showed that most literature obtained a quality score between 70 and 79 % resulting in a confidence code of "B" (n = 166, 43 %) and a score between 60 and 69 % resulting in a confidence code of "C" (n = 125, 33 %). The SADPDQAT can be used to evaluate a variety of dietary polyphenol containing literature and aids in setting priorities for further research in this area.
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.