• We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Cover of Reporting of Systematic Reviews of Micronutrients and Health: A Critical Appraisal

Reporting of Systematic Reviews of Micronutrients and Health: A Critical Appraisal

Nutrition Research Series, Vol. 3

Technical Reviews, No. 17.3

Investigators: , MPH, , MD, MPH, , MD, , MD, , MS, RD, , MD, PhD, , DSc, , PhD, and , MD.

Tufts Evidence-based Practice Center, Boston, MA
Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); .
Report No.: 09-0026-3

Structured Abstract

Background:

The quality of nutrition-related systematic reviews (SR) is an unstudied but important factor affecting their usefulness.

Objective:

To evaluate reporting quality of published SRs and identify areas for improvement.

Design:

Descriptive and exploratory analyses of reporting quality (7 nutrition items and 28 SR reporting items) of all English-language SRs published through July 2007 linking micronutrients and health outcomes in humans. Factors that may to be associated with the reporting quality were also evaluated.

Results:

We found 141 eligible SRs of 21 micronutrients. Ninety SRs that included only interventional studies met a higher proportion of our reporting criteria (median: 62 percent, interquartile range (IQR): 51 percent, 72 percent) than 31 SRs with only observational studies (median: 53 percent, IQR: 47 percent, 60 percent) or 20 SRs with both study designs (median: 47 percent, IQR: 39 percent, 52 percent) (P<0.001). SRs published after consensus reporting standards (since 2003) met a higher proportion of the reporting criteria than earlier SRs (median: 59 percent versus 50 percent, P=0.01); however, the reporting of nutrition variables remained unchanged (median: 38 percent versus 33 percent, P=0.7). The least-reported nutrition criteria were baseline nutrient exposures (28 percent) and impacts of the measurement errors from nutrition exposures (24 percent). Only 58 SRs (41 percent) used quality scales or checklists to assess the methodological quality of the primary studies included.

Conclusions:

The reporting quality of SRs has improved 3 years after publication of SR reporting standards (since 2003), but the reporting of nutrition variables has not. Improved adherence to consensus methods and reporting standards should improve the utility of nutrition SRs.

Key words:

systematic review, evidence-based, critical appraisal, micronutrients.

540 Gaither Road, Rockville, MD 20850. www​.ahrq.gov

Prepared for: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.1 Contract No. 290-02-0022. Prepared by: Tufts Evidence-based Practice Center, Boston, MA.

Suggested citation:

Chung M, Balk EM, Ip S, Raman G, Yu WW, Trikalinos TA, Lichtenstein AH, Yetley EA, Lau J. Reporting of Systematic Reviews of Micronutrients and Health: A Critical Appraisal. (Prepared by the Tufts Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-02-0022). AHRQ Publication No. 09-0026-3 Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. March 2009.

This report is based on research conducted by the Tufts Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville, MD (Contract No. 290-02-0022). The findings and conclusions in this document are those of the author(s), who are responsible for its content, and do not necessarily represent the views of AHRQ. No statement in this report should be construed as an official position of AHRQ or of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The information in this report is intended to help clinicians, employers, policymakers, and others make informed decisions about the provision of health care services. This report is intended as a reference and not as a substitute for clinical judgment.

This report may be used, in whole or in part, as the basis for the development of clinical practice guidelines and other quality enhancement tools, or as a basis for reimbursement and coverage policies. AHRQ or U.S. Department of Health and Human Services endorsement of such derivative products may not be stated or implied.

No investigators have any affiliations or financial involvement (e.g., employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties) that conflict with material presented in this report.

1

540 Gaither Road, Rockville, MD 20850. www​.ahrq.gov

Bookshelf ID: NBK45231PMID: 20734515
PubReader format: click here to try

Views

Related information

Related citations in PubMed

See reviews...See all...

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...