Cargando…

The role of study quality in aspartame and cancer epidemiology study reviews

Toews et al. [1] and the World Health Organization (WHO) [2] reviewed observational epidemiology studies of non-sugar sweeteners (NSSs) and various health effects. The former used the Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies – of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool and the latter used both the ROBINS-I tool...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Goodman, Julie E., Anneser, Elyssa G., Khandaker, Adory, Boon, Denali N.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10445957/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37638370
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloepi.2023.100110
_version_ 1785094297687687168
author Goodman, Julie E.
Anneser, Elyssa G.
Khandaker, Adory
Boon, Denali N.
author_facet Goodman, Julie E.
Anneser, Elyssa G.
Khandaker, Adory
Boon, Denali N.
author_sort Goodman, Julie E.
collection PubMed
description Toews et al. [1] and the World Health Organization (WHO) [2] reviewed observational epidemiology studies of non-sugar sweeteners (NSSs) and various health effects. The former used the Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies – of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool and the latter used both the ROBINS-I tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to evaluate study quality. Both reviews concluded that there were no associations between NSS or aspartame consumption and cancer (except possibly between saccharin and bladder cancer) but indicated that the certainty of the evidence for all cancer types was “very low.” While we agree with this conclusion, the support for the confidence in the evidence generally was not transparently documented, as the results of the study quality assessment were only provided in scores or ratings. An examination of illustrative case studies shows that some important aspects of study quality domains specific for NSSs generally or aspartame specifically (i.e., issues with the exposure and outcome assessments, the consideration of confounding/covariates, and selection bias) may have been overlooked or not given appropriate consideration, while other aspects that were less likely to have a large impact on overall study quality dominated the results in the two assessments. Our review of other studies published after the WHO [2] review further demonstrates this point. While this may not seem important given the overall lack of associations, it impacts the degree to which evidence supports a lack of effects as opposed to not being adequate to evaluate associations. In the future, aspartame and cancer outcome reviews should focus on those study quality domains that are most likely to impact the interpretation of results and discuss them in a transparent, systematic manner. If there is very low certainty in the evidence as a result of low study quality, reviewers should conclude the evidence is inadequate for making a causal determination.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10445957
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-104459572023-08-25 The role of study quality in aspartame and cancer epidemiology study reviews Goodman, Julie E. Anneser, Elyssa G. Khandaker, Adory Boon, Denali N. Glob Epidemiol Commentary Toews et al. [1] and the World Health Organization (WHO) [2] reviewed observational epidemiology studies of non-sugar sweeteners (NSSs) and various health effects. The former used the Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies – of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool and the latter used both the ROBINS-I tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to evaluate study quality. Both reviews concluded that there were no associations between NSS or aspartame consumption and cancer (except possibly between saccharin and bladder cancer) but indicated that the certainty of the evidence for all cancer types was “very low.” While we agree with this conclusion, the support for the confidence in the evidence generally was not transparently documented, as the results of the study quality assessment were only provided in scores or ratings. An examination of illustrative case studies shows that some important aspects of study quality domains specific for NSSs generally or aspartame specifically (i.e., issues with the exposure and outcome assessments, the consideration of confounding/covariates, and selection bias) may have been overlooked or not given appropriate consideration, while other aspects that were less likely to have a large impact on overall study quality dominated the results in the two assessments. Our review of other studies published after the WHO [2] review further demonstrates this point. While this may not seem important given the overall lack of associations, it impacts the degree to which evidence supports a lack of effects as opposed to not being adequate to evaluate associations. In the future, aspartame and cancer outcome reviews should focus on those study quality domains that are most likely to impact the interpretation of results and discuss them in a transparent, systematic manner. If there is very low certainty in the evidence as a result of low study quality, reviewers should conclude the evidence is inadequate for making a causal determination. Elsevier 2023-04-28 /pmc/articles/PMC10445957/ /pubmed/37638370 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloepi.2023.100110 Text en © 2023 Gradco LLC dba Gradient https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Commentary
Goodman, Julie E.
Anneser, Elyssa G.
Khandaker, Adory
Boon, Denali N.
The role of study quality in aspartame and cancer epidemiology study reviews
title The role of study quality in aspartame and cancer epidemiology study reviews
title_full The role of study quality in aspartame and cancer epidemiology study reviews
title_fullStr The role of study quality in aspartame and cancer epidemiology study reviews
title_full_unstemmed The role of study quality in aspartame and cancer epidemiology study reviews
title_short The role of study quality in aspartame and cancer epidemiology study reviews
title_sort role of study quality in aspartame and cancer epidemiology study reviews
topic Commentary
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10445957/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37638370
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloepi.2023.100110
work_keys_str_mv AT goodmanjuliee theroleofstudyqualityinaspartameandcancerepidemiologystudyreviews
AT anneserelyssag theroleofstudyqualityinaspartameandcancerepidemiologystudyreviews
AT khandakeradory theroleofstudyqualityinaspartameandcancerepidemiologystudyreviews
AT boondenalin theroleofstudyqualityinaspartameandcancerepidemiologystudyreviews
AT goodmanjuliee roleofstudyqualityinaspartameandcancerepidemiologystudyreviews
AT anneserelyssag roleofstudyqualityinaspartameandcancerepidemiologystudyreviews
AT khandakeradory roleofstudyqualityinaspartameandcancerepidemiologystudyreviews
AT boondenalin roleofstudyqualityinaspartameandcancerepidemiologystudyreviews