Reporting quality and risk of bias of systematic reviews of ultra-processed foods: a methodological study.
| Autor: | Wang, Ziyi, Wang, Yan, Shang, Wenru, Liu, Wendi, Lu, Cui, Huang, Jiayi, Lei, Chao, Chen, Zijia, Wang, Zhifei, Yang, Kehu, Li, Xiuxia, Lu, Cuncun |
|---|---|
| Předmět: |
PACKAGED foods
NUTRITION policy MEDICAL information storage & retrieval systems FOOD consumption HEALTH status indicators RESEARCH funding DECISION making in clinical medicine RESEARCH bias SYSTEMATIC reviews MEDLINE RESEARCH MEDICAL databases DATA analysis software ONLINE information services STANDARDS |
| Zdroj: | European Journal of Clinical Nutrition; Mar2024, Vol. 78 Issue 3, p171-179, 9p |
| Abstrakt: | A dramatic shift in the global food system is occurring with the rapid growth of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) consumption, which poses potentially serious health risks. Systematic review (SR) method has been used to summarise the association between UPF consumption and multiple health outcomes; however, a suboptimal-quality SR may mislead the decision-making in clinical practices and health policies. Therefore, a methodological review was conducted to identify the areas that can be improved regarding the risk of bias and reporting quality of relevant SRs. Systematic searches to collect SRs with meta-analyses of UPFs were performed using four databases from their inception to April 14, 2023. The risk of bias and reporting quality were evaluated using ROBIS and PRISMA 2020, respectively. The key characteristics of the included SRs were summarised descriptively. Excel 2019 and R 4.2.3 were used to analyse the data and draw graphs. Finally, 16 relevant SRs written in English and published between 2020 and 2023 in 12 academic journals were included. Only one SR was rated as low risk of bias, and the others were rated as higher risk of bias mainly because the risk of bias in the original studies was not explicitly addressed when synthesising the evidence. The reporting was required to be advanced significantly, involving amendments of registration and protocol, data and analytic code statement, and lists of excluded studies with justifications. The reviews' results could improve the quality, strengthen future relevant SRs' robustness, and further underpin the evidence base for supporting clinical decisions and health policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Databáze: | Complementary Index |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
Full text from SpringerLink