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

Julie E. Goodman, Elyssa G. Anneser, Adory Khandaker, Denali N. Boon
{"title":"The role of study quality in aspartame and cancer epidemiology study reviews","authors":"Julie E. Goodman,&nbsp;Elyssa G. Anneser,&nbsp;Adory Khandaker,&nbsp;Denali N. Boon","doi":"10.1016/j.gloepi.2023.100110","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>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.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":36311,"journal":{"name":"Global Epidemiology","volume":"5 ","pages":"Article 100110"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/b2/77/main.PMC10445957.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590113323000135","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

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.

研究质量在阿斯巴甜和癌症流行病学研究中的作用
Toews等人[1]和世界卫生组织(世界卫生组织)[2]回顾了非糖甜味剂(NSS)和各种健康影响的观察性流行病学研究。前者使用非随机干预研究中的偏倚风险(ROINS-I)工具,后者同时使用ROINS-I工具和Newcastle Ottawa量表来评估研究质量。两篇综述都得出结论,NSS或阿斯巴甜的消费与癌症之间没有关联(糖精和癌症之间可能没有关联),但表明所有癌症类型的证据的确定性“非常低”。虽然我们同意这一结论,但对证据可信度的支持通常没有透明的记录,因为研究质量评估的结果仅以分数或评级的形式提供。对例证性案例研究的检查表明,NSS或阿斯巴甜特有的研究质量领域的一些重要方面(即暴露和结果评估问题、混杂/协变量的考虑和选择偏差)可能被忽视或没有得到适当的考虑,而其他不太可能对整体研究质量产生重大影响的方面在两次评估的结果中占主导地位。我们对世界卫生组织[2]审查后发表的其他研究的审查进一步证明了这一点。尽管考虑到总体上缺乏关联,这似乎并不重要,但它影响了证据支持缺乏效果的程度,而不是不足以评估关联。未来,阿斯巴甜和癌症结果审查应重点关注最有可能影响结果解释的研究质量领域,并以透明、系统的方式进行讨论。如果由于研究质量低,证据的确定性非常低,评审员应得出结论,证据不足以做出因果判定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Global Epidemiology
Global Epidemiology Medicine-Infectious Diseases
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
22
审稿时长
39 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信