Cargando…

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

Suboptimal diet is recognized as a leading modifiable risk factor for non-communicable diseases. Non-randomized studies (NRSs) with patient relevant outcomes provide many insights into diet–disease relationships. Dietary guidelines are based predominantly on findings from systematic reviews of NRSs—...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schwingshackl, Lukas, Schünemann, Holger J., Meerpohl, Joerg J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8354882/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33377996
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00394-020-02464-1
_version_ 1783736670487576576
author Schwingshackl, Lukas
Schünemann, Holger J.
Meerpohl, Joerg J.
author_facet Schwingshackl, Lukas
Schünemann, Holger J.
Meerpohl, Joerg J.
author_sort Schwingshackl, Lukas
collection PubMed
description Suboptimal diet is recognized as a leading modifiable risk factor for non-communicable diseases. Non-randomized studies (NRSs) with patient relevant outcomes provide many insights into diet–disease relationships. Dietary guidelines are based predominantly on findings from systematic reviews of NRSs—mostly prospective observational studies, despite that these have been repeatedly criticized for yielding potentially less trustworthy results than randomized controlled trials (RCTs). It is assumed that these are a result of bias due to prevalent-user designs, inappropriate comparators, residual confounding, and measurement error. In this article, we aim to highlight the importance of applying risk of bias (RoB) assessments in nutritional studies to improve the credibility of evidence of systematic reviews. First, we discuss the importance and challenges of dietary RCTs and NRSs, and provide reasons for potentially less trustworthy results of dietary studies. We describe currently used tools for RoB assessment (Cochrane RoB, and ROBINS-I), describe the importance of rigorous RoB assessment in dietary studies and provide examples that further the understanding of the key issues to overcome in nutrition research. We then illustrate, by comparing the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach with current approaches used by United States Department of Agriculture Dietary Guidelines for Americans, and the World Cancer Research Fund, how to establish trust in dietary recommendations. Our overview shows that the GRADE approach provides more transparency about the single domains for grading the certainty of the evidence and the strength of recommendations. Despite not increasing the certainty of evidence itself, we expect that the rigorous application of the Cochrane RoB and the ROBINS-I tools within systematic reviews of both RCTs and NRSs and their integration within the GRADE approach will strengthen the credibility of dietary recommendations.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8354882
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-83548822021-08-25 Improving the trustworthiness of findings from nutrition evidence syntheses: assessing risk of bias and rating the certainty of evidence Schwingshackl, Lukas Schünemann, Holger J. Meerpohl, Joerg J. Eur J Nutr Review Suboptimal diet is recognized as a leading modifiable risk factor for non-communicable diseases. Non-randomized studies (NRSs) with patient relevant outcomes provide many insights into diet–disease relationships. Dietary guidelines are based predominantly on findings from systematic reviews of NRSs—mostly prospective observational studies, despite that these have been repeatedly criticized for yielding potentially less trustworthy results than randomized controlled trials (RCTs). It is assumed that these are a result of bias due to prevalent-user designs, inappropriate comparators, residual confounding, and measurement error. In this article, we aim to highlight the importance of applying risk of bias (RoB) assessments in nutritional studies to improve the credibility of evidence of systematic reviews. First, we discuss the importance and challenges of dietary RCTs and NRSs, and provide reasons for potentially less trustworthy results of dietary studies. We describe currently used tools for RoB assessment (Cochrane RoB, and ROBINS-I), describe the importance of rigorous RoB assessment in dietary studies and provide examples that further the understanding of the key issues to overcome in nutrition research. We then illustrate, by comparing the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach with current approaches used by United States Department of Agriculture Dietary Guidelines for Americans, and the World Cancer Research Fund, how to establish trust in dietary recommendations. Our overview shows that the GRADE approach provides more transparency about the single domains for grading the certainty of the evidence and the strength of recommendations. Despite not increasing the certainty of evidence itself, we expect that the rigorous application of the Cochrane RoB and the ROBINS-I tools within systematic reviews of both RCTs and NRSs and their integration within the GRADE approach will strengthen the credibility of dietary recommendations. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2020-12-30 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC8354882/ /pubmed/33377996 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00394-020-02464-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Review
Schwingshackl, Lukas
Schünemann, Holger J.
Meerpohl, Joerg J.
Improving the trustworthiness of findings from nutrition evidence syntheses: assessing risk of bias and rating the certainty of evidence
title Improving the trustworthiness of findings from nutrition evidence syntheses: assessing risk of bias and rating the certainty of evidence
title_full Improving the trustworthiness of findings from nutrition evidence syntheses: assessing risk of bias and rating the certainty of evidence
title_fullStr Improving the trustworthiness of findings from nutrition evidence syntheses: assessing risk of bias and rating the certainty of evidence
title_full_unstemmed Improving the trustworthiness of findings from nutrition evidence syntheses: assessing risk of bias and rating the certainty of evidence
title_short Improving the trustworthiness of findings from nutrition evidence syntheses: assessing risk of bias and rating the certainty of evidence
title_sort improving the trustworthiness of findings from nutrition evidence syntheses: assessing risk of bias and rating the certainty of evidence
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8354882/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33377996
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00394-020-02464-1
work_keys_str_mv AT schwingshackllukas improvingthetrustworthinessoffindingsfromnutritionevidencesynthesesassessingriskofbiasandratingthecertaintyofevidence
AT schunemannholgerj improvingthetrustworthinessoffindingsfromnutritionevidencesynthesesassessingriskofbiasandratingthecertaintyofevidence
AT meerpohljoergj improvingthetrustworthinessoffindingsfromnutritionevidencesynthesesassessingriskofbiasandratingthecertaintyofevidence