Cargando…
NUQUEST—NUtrition QUality Evaluation Strengthening Tools: development of tools for the evaluation of risk of bias in nutrition studies
BACKGROUND: Dietary exposure assessments are a critical issue in evaluating human nutrition studies; however, nutrition-specific criteria are not consistently included in existing bias assessment tools. OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to develop a set of risk of bias (RoB) tools that integrated nutrit...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Oxford University Press
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8755056/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34605544 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/nqab335 |
_version_ | 1784632349623844864 |
---|---|
author | Kelly, Shannon E Greene-Finestone, Linda S Yetley, Elizabeth A Benkhedda, Karima Brooks, Stephen P J Wells, George A MacFarlane, Amanda J |
author_facet | Kelly, Shannon E Greene-Finestone, Linda S Yetley, Elizabeth A Benkhedda, Karima Brooks, Stephen P J Wells, George A MacFarlane, Amanda J |
author_sort | Kelly, Shannon E |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Dietary exposure assessments are a critical issue in evaluating human nutrition studies; however, nutrition-specific criteria are not consistently included in existing bias assessment tools. OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to develop a set of risk of bias (RoB) tools that integrated nutrition-specific criteria into validated generic assessment tools to address RoB issues, including those specific to dietary exposure assessment. METHODS: The Nutrition QUality Evaluation Strengthening Tools (NUQUEST) development and validation process included 8 steps. The first steps identified 1) a development strategy; 2) generic assessment tools with demonstrated validity; and 3) nutrition-specific appraisal issues. This was followed by 4) generation of nutrition-specific items and 5) development of guidance to aid users of NUQUEST. The final steps used established ratings of selected studies and feedback from independent raters to 6) assess reliability and validity; 7) assess formatting and usability; and 8) finalize NUQUEST. RESULTS: NUQUEST is based on the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network checklists for randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies. Using a purposive sample of 45 studies representing the 3 study designs, interrater reliability was high (Cohen's κ: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.52, 0.93) across all tools and at least moderate for individual tools (range: 0.57–1.00). The use of a worksheet improved usability and consistency of overall interrater agreement across all study designs (40% without worksheet, 80%–100% with worksheet). When compared to published ratings, NUQUEST ratings for evaluated studies demonstrated high concurrent validity (93% perfect or near-perfect agreement). Where there was disagreement, the nutrition-specific component was a contributing factor in discerning exposure methodological issues. CONCLUSIONS: NUQUEST integrates nutrition-specific criteria with generic criteria from assessment tools with demonstrated reliability and validity. NUQUEST represents a consistent and transparent approach for evaluating RoB issues related to dietary exposure assessment commonly encountered in human nutrition studies. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8755056 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Oxford University Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-87550562022-01-14 NUQUEST—NUtrition QUality Evaluation Strengthening Tools: development of tools for the evaluation of risk of bias in nutrition studies Kelly, Shannon E Greene-Finestone, Linda S Yetley, Elizabeth A Benkhedda, Karima Brooks, Stephen P J Wells, George A MacFarlane, Amanda J Am J Clin Nutr Original Research Communications BACKGROUND: Dietary exposure assessments are a critical issue in evaluating human nutrition studies; however, nutrition-specific criteria are not consistently included in existing bias assessment tools. OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to develop a set of risk of bias (RoB) tools that integrated nutrition-specific criteria into validated generic assessment tools to address RoB issues, including those specific to dietary exposure assessment. METHODS: The Nutrition QUality Evaluation Strengthening Tools (NUQUEST) development and validation process included 8 steps. The first steps identified 1) a development strategy; 2) generic assessment tools with demonstrated validity; and 3) nutrition-specific appraisal issues. This was followed by 4) generation of nutrition-specific items and 5) development of guidance to aid users of NUQUEST. The final steps used established ratings of selected studies and feedback from independent raters to 6) assess reliability and validity; 7) assess formatting and usability; and 8) finalize NUQUEST. RESULTS: NUQUEST is based on the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network checklists for randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies. Using a purposive sample of 45 studies representing the 3 study designs, interrater reliability was high (Cohen's κ: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.52, 0.93) across all tools and at least moderate for individual tools (range: 0.57–1.00). The use of a worksheet improved usability and consistency of overall interrater agreement across all study designs (40% without worksheet, 80%–100% with worksheet). When compared to published ratings, NUQUEST ratings for evaluated studies demonstrated high concurrent validity (93% perfect or near-perfect agreement). Where there was disagreement, the nutrition-specific component was a contributing factor in discerning exposure methodological issues. CONCLUSIONS: NUQUEST integrates nutrition-specific criteria with generic criteria from assessment tools with demonstrated reliability and validity. NUQUEST represents a consistent and transparent approach for evaluating RoB issues related to dietary exposure assessment commonly encountered in human nutrition studies. Oxford University Press 2021-10-04 /pmc/articles/PMC8755056/ /pubmed/34605544 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/nqab335 Text en © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of Health, 2021. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Research Communications Kelly, Shannon E Greene-Finestone, Linda S Yetley, Elizabeth A Benkhedda, Karima Brooks, Stephen P J Wells, George A MacFarlane, Amanda J NUQUEST—NUtrition QUality Evaluation Strengthening Tools: development of tools for the evaluation of risk of bias in nutrition studies |
title | NUQUEST—NUtrition QUality Evaluation Strengthening Tools: development of tools for the evaluation of risk of bias in nutrition studies |
title_full | NUQUEST—NUtrition QUality Evaluation Strengthening Tools: development of tools for the evaluation of risk of bias in nutrition studies |
title_fullStr | NUQUEST—NUtrition QUality Evaluation Strengthening Tools: development of tools for the evaluation of risk of bias in nutrition studies |
title_full_unstemmed | NUQUEST—NUtrition QUality Evaluation Strengthening Tools: development of tools for the evaluation of risk of bias in nutrition studies |
title_short | NUQUEST—NUtrition QUality Evaluation Strengthening Tools: development of tools for the evaluation of risk of bias in nutrition studies |
title_sort | nuquest—nutrition quality evaluation strengthening tools: development of tools for the evaluation of risk of bias in nutrition studies |
topic | Original Research Communications |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8755056/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34605544 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/nqab335 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kellyshannone nuquestnutritionqualityevaluationstrengtheningtoolsdevelopmentoftoolsfortheevaluationofriskofbiasinnutritionstudies AT greenefinestonelindas nuquestnutritionqualityevaluationstrengtheningtoolsdevelopmentoftoolsfortheevaluationofriskofbiasinnutritionstudies AT yetleyelizabetha nuquestnutritionqualityevaluationstrengtheningtoolsdevelopmentoftoolsfortheevaluationofriskofbiasinnutritionstudies AT benkheddakarima nuquestnutritionqualityevaluationstrengtheningtoolsdevelopmentoftoolsfortheevaluationofriskofbiasinnutritionstudies AT brooksstephenpj nuquestnutritionqualityevaluationstrengtheningtoolsdevelopmentoftoolsfortheevaluationofriskofbiasinnutritionstudies AT wellsgeorgea nuquestnutritionqualityevaluationstrengtheningtoolsdevelopmentoftoolsfortheevaluationofriskofbiasinnutritionstudies AT macfarlaneamandaj nuquestnutritionqualityevaluationstrengtheningtoolsdevelopmentoftoolsfortheevaluationofriskofbiasinnutritionstudies |