Michelle D Althuis1, Douglas L Weed. 1. EpiContext, Research Synthesis and Epidemiology Consulting, Washington, DC, USA. michelle@epicontext.com
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence maps are a new method that systematically characterize the range of research activity in broad topic areas and are used to guide research priority setting, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. OBJECTIVE: We expanded evidence mapping methods by demonstrating their usefulness as a tool for organizing epidemiologic research on sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) intake and health outcomes: obesity, type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome, and coronary heart disease/stroke. DESIGN: We performed a search of the PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases and a hand search of references. Studies selected were reviews and longitudinal studies (intervention and cohort) published between 1 January 1966 and 31 October 2012. RESULTS: We identified and mapped 77 studies (18 review and 59 primary research articles); most of the research focused on obesity (n = 47). For all outcomes, >30% (n = 18) of the primary research studies we identified were not referenced in published reviews. We found considerable variability among primary research studies of SSBs and the 4 health outcomes in terms of designs, definitions of SSBs, and definitions of outcomes, which renders these studies difficult to interpret collectively. For example, we counted 14 different definitions of weight/obesity in 29 observational cohort studies, and ≤6 studies reported the use of the same outcome measure. CONCLUSIONS: Establishing field standards in the study of SSB intake and health outcomes would facilitate interpretation across research studies and thereby increase the utility of systematic reviews/meta-analyses and ultimately the efficiency of research efforts. Rapid publication of new data suggests the need for regular updates and caution when reading reviews.
BACKGROUND: Evidence maps are a new method that systematically characterize the range of research activity in broad topic areas and are used to guide research priority setting, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. OBJECTIVE: We expanded evidence mapping methods by demonstrating their usefulness as a tool for organizing epidemiologic research on sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) intake and health outcomes: obesity, type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome, and coronary heart disease/stroke. DESIGN: We performed a search of the PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases and a hand search of references. Studies selected were reviews and longitudinal studies (intervention and cohort) published between 1 January 1966 and 31 October 2012. RESULTS: We identified and mapped 77 studies (18 review and 59 primary research articles); most of the research focused on obesity (n = 47). For all outcomes, >30% (n = 18) of the primary research studies we identified were not referenced in published reviews. We found considerable variability among primary research studies of SSBs and the 4 health outcomes in terms of designs, definitions of SSBs, and definitions of outcomes, which renders these studies difficult to interpret collectively. For example, we counted 14 different definitions of weight/obesity in 29 observational cohort studies, and ≤6 studies reported the use of the same outcome measure. CONCLUSIONS: Establishing field standards in the study of SSB intake and health outcomes would facilitate interpretation across research studies and thereby increase the utility of systematic reviews/meta-analyses and ultimately the efficiency of research efforts. Rapid publication of new data suggests the need for regular updates and caution when reading reviews.
Authors: Valisa E Hedrick; Brenda M Davy; Grace A Wilburn; A Hope Jahren; Jamie M Zoellner Journal: Public Health Nutr Date: 2015-04-23 Impact factor: 4.022
Authors: Valisa E Hedrick; Jamie M Zoellner; A Hope Jahren; Natalie A Woodford; Joshua N Bostic; Brenda M Davy Journal: J Nutr Date: 2015-04-08 Impact factor: 4.798
Authors: Maira Bes-Rastrollo; Matthias B Schulze; Miguel Ruiz-Canela; Miguel A Martinez-Gonzalez Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2013-12-31 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Ding Ding Wang; Marissa Shams-White; Oliver John M Bright; J Scott Parrott; Mei Chung Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2016-01-05 Impact factor: 4.615