BACKGROUND: The quality of nutrition-related systematic reviews (SRs) is an unstudied but important factor affecting their usefulness. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to evaluate the reporting quality of published SRs and to identify areas of improvement. DESIGN: Descriptive and exploratory analyses of the reporting quality (7 nutrition items and 28 SR reporting items) of all English-language SRs published through July 2007 linking micronutrients and health outcomes in humans were conducted. Factors that may be associated with reporting quality were also evaluated. RESULTS: We identified 141 eligible SRs of 21 micronutrients. Ninety SRs that included only interventional studies met a higher proportion of our reporting criteria (median: 62%; interquartile range: 51%, 72%) than did 31 SRs with only observational studies (median: 53%; interquartile range: 47%, 60%) or 20 SRs with both study designs (median: 47%; interquartile range: 39%, 52%) (P < 0.001). SRs published after consensus reporting standards (since 2003) met a higher proportion of the reporting criteria than did earlier SRs (median: 59% compared with 50%; P = 0.01); however, the reporting of nutrition variables remained unchanged (median: 38% compared with 33%; P = 0.7). The least-reported nutrition criteria were baseline nutrient exposures (28%) and effects of measurement errors from nutrition exposures (24%). Only 58 SRs (41%) used quality scales or checklists to assess the methodologic quality of the primary studies included. CONCLUSIONS: The reporting quality of SRs has improved 3 y after publication of SR reporting standards, but the reporting of nutrition variables has not. Improved adherence to consensus methods and reporting standards should improve the utility of nutrition SRs.
BACKGROUND: The quality of nutrition-related systematic reviews (SRs) is an unstudied but important factor affecting their usefulness. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to evaluate the reporting quality of published SRs and to identify areas of improvement. DESIGN: Descriptive and exploratory analyses of the reporting quality (7 nutrition items and 28 SR reporting items) of all English-language SRs published through July 2007 linking micronutrients and health outcomes in humans were conducted. Factors that may be associated with reporting quality were also evaluated. RESULTS: We identified 141 eligible SRs of 21 micronutrients. Ninety SRs that included only interventional studies met a higher proportion of our reporting criteria (median: 62%; interquartile range: 51%, 72%) than did 31 SRs with only observational studies (median: 53%; interquartile range: 47%, 60%) or 20 SRs with both study designs (median: 47%; interquartile range: 39%, 52%) (P < 0.001). SRs published after consensus reporting standards (since 2003) met a higher proportion of the reporting criteria than did earlier SRs (median: 59% compared with 50%; P = 0.01); however, the reporting of nutrition variables remained unchanged (median: 38% compared with 33%; P = 0.7). The least-reported nutrition criteria were baseline nutrient exposures (28%) and effects of measurement errors from nutrition exposures (24%). Only 58 SRs (41%) used quality scales or checklists to assess the methodologic quality of the primary studies included. CONCLUSIONS: The reporting quality of SRs has improved 3 y after publication of SR reporting standards, but the reporting of nutrition variables has not. Improved adherence to consensus methods and reporting standards should improve the utility of nutrition SRs.
Authors: Elizabeth A Yetley; Amanda J MacFarlane; Linda S Greene-Finestone; Cutberto Garza; Jamy D Ard; Stephanie A Atkinson; Dennis M Bier; Alicia L Carriquiry; William R Harlan; Dale Hattis; Janet C King; Daniel Krewski; Deborah L O'Connor; Ross L Prentice; Joseph V Rodricks; George A Wells Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2016-12-07 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Daniel J Raiten; Ramkripa Raghavan; Alexandra Porter; Julie E Obbagy; Joanne M Spahn Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2014-02-05 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Winifred W Yu; Christopher H Schmid; Alice H Lichtenstein; Joseph Lau; Thomas A Trikalinos Journal: Res Synth Methods Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 5.273
Authors: Shannon E Kelly; Linda S Greene-Finestone; Elizabeth A Yetley; Karima Benkhedda; Stephen P J Brooks; George A Wells; Amanda J MacFarlane Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2022-01-11 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Byron C Wallace; Thomas A Trikalinos; Joseph Lau; Carla Brodley; Christopher H Schmid Journal: BMC Bioinformatics Date: 2010-01-26 Impact factor: 3.169