| Ref ID | 835 |
| First Author | D. Zeraatkar |
| Journal | AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION |
| Year Of Publishing | 2021 |
| URL | https://ajcn.nutrition.org/article/S0002-9165(22)00735-3/fulltext |
| Keywords |
• Nutrition • Observational studies • Heterogeneity • Epidemiology • Certainty |
| Problem(s) |
• Grey literature excluded • Search strategy not provided • Single reviewer / lack of double checking • Lack of statistical expertise in handling of quantitative data • Inadequate analysis of heterogeneity • Poor execution of narrative synthesis |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | United States |
| Aim | To assess the quality of recently published systematic reviews and meta-analyses of nutritional epidemiology studies from a random sample 150 systematic reviews published in MEDLINE (January 2018–August 2019), EMBASE (January 2018–August 2019), and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (January 2018–February 2019). |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | From150 systematic reviews published in MEDLINE (January 2018–August 2019), EMBASE (January 2018–August 2019), and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (January 2018–February 2019). Of the 150 included systematic reviews of nutritional epidemiology studies less than one-quarter (n = 30; 20.0%) reported preregistration of a protocol and almost one-third (n = 42; 28.0%) did not report a replicable search strategy. Suboptimal practices and errors in the synthesis of results were common: one-quarter of meta-analyses (n = 30; 26.1%) selected the meta-analytic model based on statistical indicators of heterogeneity and almost half of meta-analyses (n = 50; 43.5%) did not consider dose–response associations even when it was appropriate to do so. Only 16 (10.7%) reviews used an established system to evaluate the certainty of evidence. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 150 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 150 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |