Reducing waste in nutritional epidemiology: review and perspectives

Abstract

We discuss efforts in improving the value of nutrition research. We organised the paper in five research stages: Stage 1: research priority setting; Stage 2: research design, conduct and analysis; Stage 3: research regulation and management; Stage 4: research accessibility and Stage 5: research reporting and publishing. Along the stages of the research cycle, varied initiatives exist to improve the quality and added value of nutrition research. However, efforts are focused on single stages of the research cycle without vision of the research system as a whole. Although research on nutrition research has been limited, it has potential to improve the quality of nutrition research and develop new tools and instruments for this purpose. A comprehensive assessment of the magnitude of research waste in nutrition and consensus on priority actions is needed. The nutrition research community at large needs to have open discussions on the usefulness of these tools and lead suitable efforts to enhance nutrition research across the stages of the research cycle. Capacity building is essential and considerations of nutrition research quality are vital to be integrated in training efforts of nutrition researchers.

What hinders and helps academics to conduct Dissemination and Implementation (D&I) research in the field of nutrition and physical activity? An international perspective

“…Despite calls for increased training of academics and practitioners in D&I research [10], and incorporation of concepts such as 'research waste' into research training and curricula [13], the extent that individual, organizational, and systemic factors within academia influence physical activity and nutrition research-practice translation remains unclear. Understanding what helps and hinders academics from conducting research that is more translatable into practice is critical to reducing the research-practice gap.…”

Health Benefits of Whey or Colostrum Supplementation in Adults ≥35 Years; a Systematic Review

“…A limitation of the current review, and a major limitation in nutrition research, is a lack of clear reporting [63][64][65]. This results in wasted resources due to exclusion of results from SLRs, incorrect conclusions and inappropriate implementation of nutritional strategies [66]. Similar to other SLRs [14,67], many of the papers that were included in the current review were considered to have a moderate-high risk of bias due to a lack of clear methodological reporting.…”

“…In addition, two papers were excluded as details such as health status of participants [68] and specifics of the intervention used [69] were not reported. The consistent use of checklists for reporting (CONSORT for randomised controlled trials [70]) might assist authors to achieve high standards of reporting and subsequently assist SLR authors to fully assess the potential study bias [66].…”

“…A further limitation of the current review was the wide variability in the biomarkers reported and the heterogeneous nature of the study designs. We would further suggest that, when examining a food-health relationship, there is consensus on a minimum set of objective measures reported across studies to permit more robust meta-analyses [66], as many are limited by the heterogeneity of included studies [15,16,71].…”