Literature DB >> 34918032

Perspective: USDA Nutrition Evidence Systematic Review Methodology: Grading the Strength of Evidence in Nutrition- and Public Health-Related Systematic Reviews.

Maureen K Spill1,2, Laural K English1,2, Ramkripa Raghavan1,2, Emily Callahan2, Darcy Güngör1,2, Brittany Kingshipp1,2, Joanne Spahn2, Eve Stoody3, Julie Obbagy2.   

Abstract

The USDA's Nutrition Evidence Systematic Review (NESR) team conducts food- and nutrition-related systematic reviews used to inform US Federal guidelines and programs, including the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. NESR's systematic review methodology includes a step to grade the strength of the evidence underlying conclusion statements, which is critical for ensuring that end users understand the level of certainty in conclusions when using them to make decisions. Over time, NESR has ensured its grading process not only remains state of the art but is also designed specifically for systematic reviews that inform Federal guidelines and programs on nutrition and public health. The NESR grading process used by the 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee included 5 grading elements: risk of bias, consistency, directness, precision, and generalizability. Evidence was grouped by study design and assessed against these elements, and the grade assigned to the entire body of evidence took into consideration the strengths and limitations of each design. Based on this assessment, 1 of 4 grades was assigned: strong, moderate, limited, or grade not assignable. The grade was clearly communicated by integrating specific language into each conclusion statement (e.g., "strong evidence demonstrates" or "limited evidence suggests"), and supported by rationale documented in the review. NESR's grading process aligns with approaches used by other organizations that conduct systematic reviews, while retaining aspects unique to NESR's role in informing Federal nutrition and public health guidelines and programs. It provides a framework that promotes consistency in grading across food- and nutrition-related reviews, while offering flexibility that allows for thorough consideration of the body of evidence underlying an individual conclusion statement. NESR's rigorous and transparent methods for grading the strength of evidence in food- and nutrition-related systematic reviews ensure that decisions related to nutrition and public health are based on the strongest available evidence. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society for Nutrition 2021.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Dietary Guidelines for Americans; NESR; certainty of evidence; federal food policy and programs; grading; nutrition evidence systematic review; public health; strength of evidence; systematic review methodology; systematic reviews

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 34918032      PMCID: PMC9340967          DOI: 10.1093/advances/nmab147

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


  12 in total

1.  Translating research into action: WHO evidence-informed guidelines for safe and effective micronutrient interventions.

Authors:  Juan Pablo Pena-Rosas; Luz Maria De-Regil; Lisa M Rogers; Ameya Bopardikar; Ulysses Panisset
Journal:  J Nutr       Date:  2011-11-23       Impact factor: 4.798

Review 2.  GRADE guidelines: 11. Making an overall rating of confidence in effect estimates for a single outcome and for all outcomes.

Authors:  Gordon Guyatt; Andrew D Oxman; Shahnaz Sultan; Jan Brozek; Paul Glasziou; Pablo Alonso-Coello; David Atkins; Regina Kunz; Victor Montori; Roman Jaeschke; David Rind; Philipp Dahm; Elie A Akl; Joerg Meerpohl; Gunn Vist; Elise Berliner; Susan Norris; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Holger J Schünemann
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2012-04-27       Impact factor: 6.437

3.  GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables.

Authors:  Gordon Guyatt; Andrew D Oxman; Elie A Akl; Regina Kunz; Gunn Vist; Jan Brozek; Susan Norris; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Paul Glasziou; Hans DeBeer; Roman Jaeschke; David Rind; Joerg Meerpohl; Philipp Dahm; Holger J Schünemann
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2010-12-31       Impact factor: 6.437

4.  Grading the strength of a body of evidence when assessing health care interventions: an EPC update.

Authors:  Nancy D Berkman; Kathleen N Lohr; Mohammed T Ansari; Ethan M Balk; Robert Kane; Marian McDonagh; Sally C Morton; Meera Viswanathan; Eric B Bass; Mary Butler; Gerald Gartlehner; Lisa Hartling; Melissa McPheeters; Laura C Morgan; James Reston; Priyanka Sista; Evelyn Whitlock; Stephanie Chang
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2014-12-20       Impact factor: 6.437

5.  GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence--publication bias.

Authors:  Gordon H Guyatt; Andrew D Oxman; Victor Montori; Gunn Vist; Regina Kunz; Jan Brozek; Pablo Alonso-Coello; Ben Djulbegovic; David Atkins; Yngve Falck-Ytter; John W Williams; Joerg Meerpohl; Susan L Norris; Elie A Akl; Holger J Schünemann
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2011-07-30       Impact factor: 6.437

6.  GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence--indirectness.

Authors:  Gordon H Guyatt; Andrew D Oxman; Regina Kunz; James Woodcock; Jan Brozek; Mark Helfand; Pablo Alonso-Coello; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Roman Jaeschke; Gunn Vist; Elie A Akl; Piet N Post; Susan Norris; Joerg Meerpohl; Vijay K Shukla; Mona Nasser; Holger J Schünemann
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2011-07-30       Impact factor: 6.437

7.  An evidence-based medicine methodology to bridge the gap between clinical and environmental health sciences.

Authors:  Tracey J Woodruff; Patrice Sutton
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 6.301

8.  GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence--inconsistency.

Authors:  Gordon H Guyatt; Andrew D Oxman; Regina Kunz; James Woodcock; Jan Brozek; Mark Helfand; Pablo Alonso-Coello; Paul Glasziou; Roman Jaeschke; Elie A Akl; Susan Norris; Gunn Vist; Philipp Dahm; Vijay K Shukla; Julian Higgins; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Holger J Schünemann
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2011-07-31       Impact factor: 6.437

9.  Systematic review methods for the Pregnancy and Birth to 24 Months Project.

Authors:  Julie E Obbagy; Joanne M Spahn; Yat Ping Wong; Tricia L Psota; Maureen K Spill; Carol Dreibelbis; Darcy E Gungor; Perrine Nadaud; Ramkripa Raghavan; Emily H Callahan; Laural K English; Brittany L Kingshipp; Concetta C LaPergola; Myra J Shapiro; Eve E Stoody
Journal:  Am J Clin Nutr       Date:  2019-03-01       Impact factor: 7.045

10.  The Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans.

Authors:  Katrina L Piercy; Richard P Troiano; Rachel M Ballard; Susan A Carlson; Janet E Fulton; Deborah A Galuska; Stephanie M George; Richard D Olson
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2018-11-20       Impact factor: 157.335

View more
  2 in total

1.  Perspective: Early-Life Nutrition Research Supported by the US National Institutes of Health from 2018 to 2020.

Authors:  Matthew J Landry; Lyndsey D Ruiz; Kimberlea Gibbs; Marcela D Radtke; Jennifer Lerman; Ashley J Vargas
Journal:  Adv Nutr       Date:  2022-10-02       Impact factor: 11.567

Review 2.  Evidence and suggestions for establishing vitamin D intake standards in Koreans for the prevention of chronic diseases.

Authors:  Jung Hyun Kim; Hyoung Su Park; Munkyong Pae; Kyung Hee Park; Oran Kwon
Journal:  Nutr Res Pract       Date:  2022-04-11       Impact factor: 1.992

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.