Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Jun 1;113(6):1578-1592.
doi: 10.1093/ajcn/nqab002.

Characteristics and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational nutritional epidemiology: a cross-sectional study

Dena Zeraatkar  1   2 , Arrti Bhasin  1 , Rita E Morassut  3 , Isabella Churchill  1 , Arnav Gupta  4 , Daeria O Lawson  1 , Anna Miroshnychenko  1 , Emily Sirotich  1 , Komal Aryal  1 , David Mikhail  5 , Tauseef A Khan  6   7 , Vanessa Ha  8 , John L Sievenpiper  6   7 , Steven E Hanna  1 , Joseph Beyene  1 , Russell J de Souza  1   7   9
Affiliations

Characteristics and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational nutritional epidemiology: a cross-sectional study

Dena Zeraatkar et al. Am J Clin Nutr. .

Abstract

Background: Dietary recommendations and policies should be guided by rigorous systematic reviews. Reviews that are of poor methodological quality may be ineffective or misleading. Most of the evidence in nutrition comes from nonrandomized studies of nutritional exposures (usually referred to as nutritional epidemiology studies), but to date methodological evaluations of the quality of systematic reviews of such studies have been sparse and inconsistent.

Objectives: We aimed to investigate the quality of recently published systematic reviews and meta-analyses of nutritional epidemiology studies and to propose guidance addressing major limitations.

Methods: We searched MEDLINE (January 2018-August 2019), EMBASE (January 2018-August 2019), and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (January 2018-February 2019) for systematic reviews of nutritional epidemiology studies. We included a random sample of 150 reviews.

Results: Most reviews were published by authors from Asia (n = 49; 32.7%) or Europe (n = 43; 28.7%) and investigated foods or beverages (n = 60; 40.0%) and cancer morbidity and mortality (n = 54; 36%). Reviews often had important limitations: less than one-quarter (n = 30; 20.0%) reported preregistration of a protocol and almost one-third (n = 42; 28.0%) did not report a replicable search strategy. Suboptimal practices and errors in the synthesis of results were common: one-quarter of meta-analyses (n = 30; 26.1%) selected the meta-analytic model based on statistical indicators of heterogeneity and almost half of meta-analyses (n = 50; 43.5%) did not consider dose-response associations even when it was appropriate to do so. Only 16 (10.7%) reviews used an established system to evaluate the certainty of evidence.

Conclusions: Systematic reviews of nutritional epidemiology studies often have serious limitations. Authors can improve future reviews by involving statisticians, methodologists, and researchers with substantive knowledge in the specific area of nutrition being studied and using a rigorous and transparent system to evaluate the certainty of evidence.

Keywords: credibility; nutritional epidemiology; quality; risk of bias; systematic reviews.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

References

    1. Ortiz-Moncada R, González-Zapata L, Ruiz-Cantero MT, Clemente-Gómez V. Priority issues, study designs and geographical distribution in nutrition journals. Nutr Hosp. 2011;26(4):784–91. - PubMed
    1. Zeraatkar D, Johnston BC, Guyatt G. Evidence collection and evaluation for the development of dietary guidelines and public policy on nutrition. Annu Rev Nutr. 2019;39:227–47. - PubMed
    1. Hebert JR, Frongillo EA, Adams SA, Turner-McGrievy GM, Hurley TG, Miller DR, Ockene IS. Perspective: randomized controlled trials are not a panacea for diet-related research. Adv Nutr. 2016;7(3):423–32. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Brannon PM, Taylor CL, Coates PM. Use and applications of systematic reviews in public health nutrition. Annu Rev Nutr. 2014;34:401–19. - PubMed
    1. Barnard ND, Willett WC, Ding EL. The misuse of meta-analysis in nutrition research. JAMA. 2017;318(15):1435–6. - PubMed

Publication types

Grants and funding