ArticleWorld journal of methodology2025
Current state of nutritional psychiatry: A scoping review of randomized controlled trials.
Article in World journal of methodology, 2025. 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNutritional psychiatry is a rapidly expanding field of research, with mounting evidence suggesting that nutritional factors may play a role in the development of psychiatric disorders.
aimTo examine the level of evidence for nutritional psychiatry.
methodsA scoping review was conducted to assess the current state of nutritional psychiatry, including a search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
resultsThe review identified a total of seven papers, with many concentrating on the relationship between depression and the gut microbiome. A salient issue that emerged from this review was the paucity of sample size in many studies. The inherent complexity of nutritional studies, characterized by a multitude of potential factors and exposures that often act as confounders, poses significant challenges to the development of effective RCT designs. The analysis revealed that probiotics, though demonstrating efficacy, exhibited a modest effect size.
conclusionConducting RCTs with effective markers is imperative from these studies. The implementation of Mendelian randomization and the investigation of mechanisms in basic research are essential complementary approaches.
Indexed as
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.