Assessments of risk of bias in systematic reviews of observational nutritional epidemiologic studies are often not appropriate or comprehensive: a methodological study.
IF 4.3 3区 材料科学Q1 ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC
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":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To describe methods for the assessment of risk of bias in reviews of nutritional epidemiologic studies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Jan 2018-Aug 2019) and sampled 150 systematic reviews of nutritional epidemiologic studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Reviews of nutritional epidemiologic studies have important limitations in their assessment of risk of bias.</p>","PeriodicalId":3,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","volume":" ","pages":"487-500"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"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":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjnph-2021-000248","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC","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.
期刊介绍:
ACS Applied Electronic Materials is an interdisciplinary journal publishing original research covering all aspects of electronic materials. The journal is devoted to reports of new and original experimental and theoretical research of an applied nature that integrate knowledge in the areas of materials science, engineering, optics, physics, and chemistry into important applications of electronic materials. Sample research topics that span the journal's scope are inorganic, organic, ionic and polymeric materials with properties that include conducting, semiconducting, superconducting, insulating, dielectric, magnetic, optoelectronic, piezoelectric, ferroelectric and thermoelectric.
Indexed/Abstracted:
Web of Science SCIE
Scopus
CAS
INSPEC
Portico