Assessments of risk of bias in systematic reviews of observational nutritional epidemiologic studies are often not appropriate or comprehensive: a methodological study.

IF 3.3 Q2 NUTRITION & DIETETICS

BMJ Nutrition, Prevention and Health Pub Date : 2021-12-07 eCollection Date: 2021-01-01 DOI:10.1136/bmjnph-2021-000248

Dena Zeraatkar, Alana Kohut, Arrti Bhasin, Rita E Morassut, Isabella Churchill, Arnav Gupta, Daeria Lawson, Anna Miroshnychenko, Emily Sirotich, Komal Aryal, Maria Azab, Joseph Beyene, Russell J de Souza

{"title":"Assessments of risk of bias in systematic reviews of observational nutritional epidemiologic studies are often not appropriate or comprehensive: a methodological study.","authors":"Dena Zeraatkar, Alana Kohut, Arrti Bhasin, Rita E Morassut, Isabella Churchill, Arnav Gupta, Daeria Lawson, Anna Miroshnychenko, Emily Sirotich, Komal Aryal, Maria Azab, Joseph Beyene, Russell J de Souza","doi":"10.1136/bmjnph-2021-000248","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: An essential component of systematic reviews is the assessment of risk of bias. To date, there has been no investigation of how reviews of non-randomised studies of nutritional exposures (called 'nutritional epidemiologic studies') assess risk of bias.Objective: To describe methods for the assessment of risk of bias in reviews of nutritional epidemiologic studies.Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Jan 2018-Aug 2019) and sampled 150 systematic reviews of nutritional epidemiologic studies.Results: Most reviews (n=131/150; 87.3%) attempted to assess risk of bias. Commonly used tools neglected to address all important sources of bias, such as selective reporting (n=25/28; 89.3%), and frequently included constructs unrelated to risk of bias, such as reporting (n=14/28; 50.0%). Most reviews (n=66/101; 65.3%) did not incorporate risk of bias in the synthesis. While more than half of reviews considered biases due to confounding and misclassification of the exposure in their interpretation of findings, other biases, such as selective reporting, were rarely considered (n=1/150; 0.7%).Conclusion: Reviews of nutritional epidemiologic studies have important limitations in their assessment of risk of bias.","PeriodicalId":36307,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Nutrition, Prevention and Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/0c/6c/bmjnph-2021-000248.PMC8718856.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Nutrition, Prevention and Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjnph-2021-000248","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: An essential component of systematic reviews is the assessment of risk of bias. To date, there has been no investigation of how reviews of non-randomised studies of nutritional exposures (called 'nutritional epidemiologic studies') assess risk of bias.

Objective: To describe methods for the assessment of risk of bias in reviews of nutritional epidemiologic studies.

Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Jan 2018-Aug 2019) and sampled 150 systematic reviews of nutritional epidemiologic studies.

Results: Most reviews (n=131/150; 87.3%) attempted to assess risk of bias. Commonly used tools neglected to address all important sources of bias, such as selective reporting (n=25/28; 89.3%), and frequently included constructs unrelated to risk of bias, such as reporting (n=14/28; 50.0%). Most reviews (n=66/101; 65.3%) did not incorporate risk of bias in the synthesis. While more than half of reviews considered biases due to confounding and misclassification of the exposure in their interpretation of findings, other biases, such as selective reporting, were rarely considered (n=1/150; 0.7%).

Conclusion: Reviews of nutritional epidemiologic studies have important limitations in their assessment of risk of bias.

查看原文本刊更多论文

观察性营养流行病学研究系统综述中的偏倚风险评估往往不恰当或不全面：一项方法学研究。

背景：系统综述的一个重要组成部分是评估偏倚风险。迄今为止，还没有关于营养暴露的非随机研究综述（称为 "营养流行病学研究"）如何评估偏倚风险的调查：描述营养流行病学研究综述的偏倚风险评估方法：我们检索了 MEDLINE、EMBASE 和 Cochrane 系统综述数据库（2018 年 1 月至 2019 年 8 月），并抽取了 150 篇营养流行病学研究的系统综述：大多数综述（n=131/150；87.3%）试图评估偏倚风险。常用的工具忽略了所有重要的偏倚来源，如选择性报告（n=25/28；89.3%），并经常包含与偏倚风险无关的构建，如报告（n=14/28；50.0%）。大多数综述（n=66/101；65.3%）未将偏倚风险纳入综述。虽然半数以上的综述在解释研究结果时考虑了混杂和暴露分类错误造成的偏倚，但很少考虑其他偏倚，如选择性报告（n=1/150；0.7%）：营养流行病学研究综述在评估偏倚风险方面存在重要的局限性。

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

BMJ Nutrition, Prevention and Health Nursing-Nutrition and Dietetics

CiteScore

5.80

自引率

0.00%

发文量