Literature DB >> 34308960

Evaluating Concordance of Bodies of Evidence from Randomized Controlled Trials, Dietary Intake, and Biomarkers of Intake in Cohort Studies: A Meta-Epidemiological Study.

Jessica Beyerbach, Julia Stadelmaier, Georg Hoffmann, Sara Balduzzi, Nils Bröckelmann, Lukas Schwingshackl.   

Abstract

We aimed to identify and compare empirical data to determine the concordance of diet-disease effect estimates of bodies of evidence (BoE) from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), dietary intake, and biomarkers of dietary intake in cohort studies (CSs). The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and MEDLINE were searched for systematic reviews (SRs) of RCTs and SRs of CSs that investigated both dietary intake and biomarkers of intake published between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2019. For matched diet-disease associations, the concordance between results from the 3 different BoE was analyzed using 2 definitions: qualitative (e.g., 95% CI within a predefined range) and quantitative (test hypothesis on the z score). Moreover, the differences in the results coming from BoERCTs, BoECSs dietary intake, and BoECSs biomarkers were synthesized to get a pooled ratio of risk ratio (RRR) across all eligible diet-disease associations, so as to compare the 3 BoE. Overall, 49 diet-disease associations derived from 41 SRs were identified and included in the analysis. Twenty-four percent, 10%, and 39% of the diet-disease associations were qualitatively concordant comparing BoERCTs with BoECSs dietary intake, BoERCTs with BoECSs biomarkers, and comparing both BoE from CSs, respectively; 88%, 69%, and 90% of the diet-disease associations were quantitatively concordant comparing BoERCTs with BoECSs dietary intake, BoERCTs with BoECSs biomarkers, and comparing both BoE from CSs, respectively. The pooled RRRs comparing effects from BoERCTs with effects from BoECSs dietary intake were 1.09 (95% CI: 1.06, 1.13) and 1.18 (95% CI: 1.10, 1.25) compared with BoECSs biomarkers. Comparing both BoE from CSs, the difference in the results was also small (RRR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.88, 0.96). Our findings suggest that BoE from RCTs and CSs are often quantitatively concordant. Prospective SRs in nutrition research should include, whenever possible, BoE from RCTs and CSs on dietary intake and biomarkers of intake to provide the whole picture for an investigated diet-disease association.
© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society for Nutrition.

Entities:  

Keywords:  biomarkers of intake; cohort studies; concordance; dietary intake; meta-epidemiological; randomized controlled trials

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2022        PMID: 34308960      PMCID: PMC8803500          DOI: 10.1093/advances/nmab095

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Adv Nutr        ISSN: 2161-8313            Impact factor:   11.567


  74 in total

Review 1.  Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.

Authors:  Julian P T Higgins; Simon G Thompson; Jonathan J Deeks; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-09-06

Review 2.  Vitamin D supplementation for prevention of cancer in adults.

Authors:  Goran Bjelakovic; Lise Lotte Gluud; Dimitrinka Nikolova; Kate Whitfield; Goran Krstic; Jørn Wetterslev; Christian Gluud
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2014-06-23

3.  Meta-analysis in clinical trials.

Authors:  R DerSimonian; N Laird
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  1986-09

Review 4.  Urinary biomarkers of dietary intake: a review.

Authors:  Erin D Clarke; Megan E Rollo; Kristine Pezdirc; Clare E Collins; Rebecca L Haslam
Journal:  Nutr Rev       Date:  2020-05-01       Impact factor: 7.110

5.  Global, regional, and national age-sex-specific mortality for 282 causes of death in 195 countries and territories, 1980-2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017.

Authors: 
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2018-11-08       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 6.  Effect of individual omega-3 fatty acids on the risk of prostate cancer: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies.

Authors:  Yuan-Qing Fu; Ju-Sheng Zheng; Bo Yang; Duo Li
Journal:  J Epidemiol       Date:  2015-03-14       Impact factor: 3.211

7.  N-3 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids and risk of all-cause mortality among general populations: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Guo-Chong Chen; Jing Yang; Manfred Eggersdorfer; Weiguo Zhang; Li-Qiang Qin
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-06-16       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 8.  Soy Consumption and the Risk of Prostate Cancer: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Catherine C Applegate; Joe L Rowles; Katherine M Ranard; Sookyoung Jeon; John W Erdman
Journal:  Nutrients       Date:  2018-01-04       Impact factor: 5.717

9.  Effects of folic acid supplementation on overall and site-specific cancer incidence during the randomised trials: meta-analyses of data on 50,000 individuals.

Authors:  Stein Emil Vollset; Robert Clarke; Sarah Lewington; Marta Ebbing; Jim Halsey; Eva Lonn; Jane Armitage; JoAnn E Manson; Graeme J Hankey; J David Spence; Pilar Galan; Kaare H Bønaa; Rex Jamison; J Michael Gaziano; Peter Guarino; John A Baron; Richard F A Logan; Edward L Giovannucci; Martin den Heijer; Per M Ueland; Derrick Bennett; Rory Collins; Richard Peto
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2013-03-23       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 10.  Improving the trustworthiness of findings from nutrition evidence syntheses: assessing risk of bias and rating the certainty of evidence.

Authors:  Lukas Schwingshackl; Holger J Schünemann; Joerg J Meerpohl
Journal:  Eur J Nutr       Date:  2020-12-30       Impact factor: 5.614

View more
  2 in total

1.  An Empirical Evaluation of the Impact Scenario of Pooling Bodies of Evidence from Randomized Controlled Trials and Cohort Studies in Nutrition Research.

Authors:  Lukas Schwingshackl; Nils Bröckelmann; Jessica Beyerbach; Sarah S Werner; Jasmin Zähringer; Guido Schwarzer; Joerg J Meerpohl
Journal:  Adv Nutr       Date:  2022-10-02       Impact factor: 11.567

2.  Dietary fibre in hypertension and cardiovascular disease management: systematic review and meta-analyses.

Authors:  Andrew N Reynolds; Ashley Akerman; Shiristi Kumar; Huyen Tran Diep Pham; Sean Coffey; Jim Mann
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2022-04-22       Impact factor: 11.150

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.