Twin-Based Randomized Controlled Trials in Nutritional Research: A Scoping Review.

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q4 GENETICS & HEREDITY
Twin Research and Human Genetics Pub Date : 2026-06-01 Epub Date: 2026-06-24 DOI:10.1017/thg.2026.10074
Donya Shahamati, Jessica Nguyen, Matthew J Landry
{"title":"Twin-Based Randomized Controlled Trials in Nutritional Research: A Scoping Review.","authors":"Donya Shahamati, Jessica Nguyen, Matthew J Landry","doi":"10.1017/thg.2026.10074","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Establishing causality in nutritional science is difficult. Human diets are complex, and individuals vary substantially in how they respond to dietary exposures. The nutrition literature mostly relies on observational studies, which are vulnerable to confounding and measurement error. Twin-based randomized controlled trials (RCTs), especially the co-twin control design, offer a compelling methodological solution to many of these challenges. This design enables researchers to distinguish genetic from environmental influences on health outcomes. The present scoping review was conducted to systematically map twin RCTs in nutrition science, evaluate their methodological approaches, and identify gaps and opportunities for future research. A comprehensive search across clinical trial registries and electronic databases yielded only 13 eligible studies, demonstrating that co-twin randomized dietary interventions remain rare relative to standard study designs using nontwins or twins assigned to the same arm. The interventions used in these eligible RCTs could be classified into four groups: dietary pattern interventions, nutrient- or supplement-based interventions, dietary component modification, and behavioral or multimodal interventions. This limited number of studies may be explained by recruitment challenges and concerns about generalizability. Greater international collaboration, standardized trial protocols, and integration of emerging technologies could expand the utility of twin designs in nutrition science.</p>","PeriodicalId":23446,"journal":{"name":"Twin Research and Human Genetics","volume":" ","pages":"165-175"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Twin Research and Human Genetics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/thg.2026.10074","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/6/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Establishing causality in nutritional science is difficult. Human diets are complex, and individuals vary substantially in how they respond to dietary exposures. The nutrition literature mostly relies on observational studies, which are vulnerable to confounding and measurement error. Twin-based randomized controlled trials (RCTs), especially the co-twin control design, offer a compelling methodological solution to many of these challenges. This design enables researchers to distinguish genetic from environmental influences on health outcomes. The present scoping review was conducted to systematically map twin RCTs in nutrition science, evaluate their methodological approaches, and identify gaps and opportunities for future research. A comprehensive search across clinical trial registries and electronic databases yielded only 13 eligible studies, demonstrating that co-twin randomized dietary interventions remain rare relative to standard study designs using nontwins or twins assigned to the same arm. The interventions used in these eligible RCTs could be classified into four groups: dietary pattern interventions, nutrient- or supplement-based interventions, dietary component modification, and behavioral or multimodal interventions. This limited number of studies may be explained by recruitment challenges and concerns about generalizability. Greater international collaboration, standardized trial protocols, and integration of emerging technologies could expand the utility of twin designs in nutrition science.

营养研究中基于双胞胎的随机对照试验:范围综述。
在营养科学中建立因果关系是困难的。人类的饮食是复杂的,个体对饮食暴露的反应也有很大的不同。营养文献大多依赖于观察性研究,容易受到混淆和测量误差的影响。基于双胞胎的随机对照试验(rct),特别是双胎对照设计,为许多这些挑战提供了令人信服的方法学解决方案。这种设计使研究人员能够区分遗传和环境对健康结果的影响。本综述旨在系统地绘制营养科学领域的双随机对照试验,评估其方法学方法,并确定未来研究的差距和机会。在临床试验注册和电子数据库中进行的全面搜索只产生了13项符合条件的研究,这表明,与使用非双胞胎或双胞胎分配到同一组的标准研究设计相比,双胎随机饮食干预仍然很少见。这些符合条件的随机对照试验中使用的干预措施可分为四组:饮食模式干预、基于营养或补充剂的干预、饮食成分调整以及行为或多模式干预。研究数量有限可能是由于招聘方面的挑战和对普遍性的担忧。更大的国际合作、标准化的试验方案和新兴技术的整合可以扩大双胞胎设计在营养科学中的效用。
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
Twin Research and Human Genetics
Twin Research and Human Genetics 医学-妇产科学
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
11.10%
发文量
37
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Twin Research and Human Genetics is the official journal of the International Society for Twin Studies. Twin Research and Human Genetics covers all areas of human genetics with an emphasis on twin studies, genetic epidemiology, psychiatric and behavioral genetics, and research on multiple births in the fields of epidemiology, genetics, endocrinology, fetal pathology, obstetrics and pediatrics. Through Twin Research and Human Genetics the society aims to publish the latest research developments in twin studies throughout the world.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书