Use and Applications of Systematic Reviews in Public Health Nutrition

Brannon, Patsy M.; Taylor, Christine L.; Coates, Paul M.

doi:10.1146/annurev-nutr-080508-141240

Cited by 27 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Only about 5% of nutrition reviews included study designs other than RCTs, likely because Cochrane reviews focus on questions related to effectiveness, where RCTs are considered the ‘gold standard.’ However, this may have the consequence of restricting the scope of review topics that can be considered [6, 25–27]. Some questions about effects in the field of nutrition are difficult to answer using a trial design due to long time horizons for outcomes of interest, ethical issues where there is potential for harm, high cost, lack of feasibility, and complexity.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scope and quality of Cochrane reviews of nutrition interventions: a cross-sectional study

Naudé

Durão

Harper

et al. 2017

Nutr J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundAll countries face significant challenges from complex manifestations of malnutrition, which affects one in three people globally. Systematic reviews provide ready-to-use syntheses of quality-appraised evidence to inform decision-making for actions. To enhance the utility and quality of future Cochrane nutrition evidence, we described the scope and quality of all nutrition systematic reviews in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR).MethodsWe screened all active CDSR records (31 July 2015) to identify reviews and protocols using pre-specified eligibility criteria and definitions. Duplicate, independent data extraction included criteria for inclusion of studies in completed reviews (PICOS). We assessed methodological quality (AMSTAR), use of GRADE, mapped reviews against 2013 Global Burden of Disease data, and categorised the paradigm (medical, lifestyle and socio-ecological) of the review question. We analysed our results using descriptive statistics.ResultsWe screened 8484 records, and included 470 (8%) completed reviews (in 45 Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs)) and 169 (7%) protocols (in 41 CRGs) published by 47 of 53 CRGs with reviews. Most completed reviews were produced by the Pregnancy and Childbirth (n = 73), Neonatal (n = 64), Metabolic and Endocrine Disorders (n = 33), Developmental, Psychosocial and Learning Problems (n = 26), Kidney and Transplant (n = 18) and Heart (n = 18) CRGs. Only 27% (n = 129) of reviews had searches for new studies in 2013 or thereafter. Supplementation/supplement interventions were most common (50%; n = 235; majority with micronutrients; 73%, n = 173), followed by food interventions (20%; n = 95). All reviews included randomised controlled trials; about 5% included other designs; 25% used GRADE; the median AMSTAR score was 9 (interquartile range: 7 to 10), 51% were high (AMSTAR 9-11) and 49% moderate (AMSTAR 5-8) quality. More than 80% framed questions using a medical paradigm. For top causes of years-of-life-lost, most reviews addressed preterm birth, diabetes and ischaemic heart disease; for leading risk factors for disability-adjusted-life-years, most targeted childhood undernutrition and high body mass index.ConclusionsNutrition reviews comprised 8% of active CDSR records, were widely distributed across nearly all CRGs and reflected the double nutrition burden. This analysis presents a comprehensive description of the scope and quality of Cochrane nutrition reviews, and identifies gaps for future activities to support actions to address the nutrition burden, in line with the current nutrition agenda and impetus.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scope and quality of Cochrane reviews of nutrition interventions: a cross-sectional study

Naudé

Durão

Harper

et al. 2017

Nutr J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Dentre as estratégias sugeridas para o estímulo ao uso de evidências nas tomadas de decisão, destacam-se as revisões sistemáticas (RS), que são estudos secundários que utilizam métodos estruturados e rigorosos para examinar, comparar e sintetizar as evidências empíricas relevantes a uma questão de pesquisa específica (29)(30)(31) . Tem por objetivo localizar, avaliar criticamente e interpretar todos os estudos disponíveis para uma questão de pesquisa, área do conhecimento ou fenômeno de interesse (32) .…”

Section: As Evidências No Contexto Da Saúde Coletivaunclassified

“…Ao analisar toda a evidência disponível através de um processo transparente, explícito, reprodutível, rigoroso e abrangente, as RS reduzem os riscos de viés e erros randômicos (22,29,30) . As RS permitem a identificação da natureza e da qualidade das evidências disponibilizadas por estudos primários, a consistência do efeito estudado e a evidência de causalidade, especialmente quando os resultados de múltiplos estudos são controversos ou conflitantes (29) .…”

Section: As Evidências No Contexto Da Saúde Coletivaunclassified

Da prática baseada em evidências para a saúde coletiva informada por evidencias: revisão narrativa

Wachholz¹,

Lima²,

Boas³

2018

RBPS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Este artigo está publicado em acesso aberto (Open Access) sob a licença Creative Commons, que permite uso, distribuição e reprodução em qualquer meio, sem restrições, desde que o trabalho seja corretamente citado. RESUMOObjetivo: Revisar na literatura a descrição dos conceitos e o emprego das evidências científicas no âmbito da Saúde Coletiva (SC). Métodos: Realizou-se uma revisão narrativa utilizando e combinando as palavras-chave "Saúde Pública" OR "Saúde Coletiva"; "Medicina baseada em evidências" e "Política informada por evidências" por meio da consulta as bases de dados Lilacs, SciELO e MedLine. As buscas foram limitadas ao período entre janeiro de 1990 a dezembro de 2016, no idioma português e/ou inglês. A seleção dos estudos foi realizada por dois autores, de modo independente, por meio da leitura do título, resumo e texto completo. Para o processo de síntese, as temáticas encontradas foram agrupadas em três grandes eixos norteadores: as evidências e a prática em saúde, as evidências em SC, e os avanços e desafios da Saúde Coletiva Informada pelas Evidências (SCIE). Resultados: Os achados desta revisão apontam que as tomadas de decisão na SC são mais complexas do que as decisões clínicas individuais, pois envolvem avaliações de impactos orçamentários e políticos, reforçando a relevância da adoção de práticas informadas pelas evidências neste campo. Conclusão: Os meios de apropriação e emprego das evidências no campo da SC são complexos, pois envolvem pressupostos de plausibilidade e adequação nem sempre observados em intervenções individuais. Ainda assim, o campo beneficia-se da aproximação observada na SCIE e, em particular, na tomada de decisões em saúde. ABSTRACT Objective: To review the literature about the description of concepts and the use of scientific evidence in Public Health (PH). Methods:A narrative review was carried out using and combining the keywords "Public Health" OR "Collective Health"; "Evidence-based medicine" and "Evidence-informed policy" to consult the Lilacs, SciELO and MedLine databases. The searches were limited to articles published between January 1990 and December 2016 in Portuguese and/or English. The studies were selected by two independent authors who read the title, abstract and full text. For the synthesis process, the themes found were grouped into three main guiding axes: health evidence and practice, PH evidence, and the advances and challenges of Evidence-Informed Public Health (EIPH). Results: The findings of this review point out that decision making in PH is more complex than individual clinical decisions as it involves assessment of budgetary and political impacts, thus reinforcing the relevance of adopting evidence-informed practice in this field. Conclusion: The means of appropriation and use of evidence in the PH field are complex because they involve assumptions of plausibility and adequacy that are not always observed in individual interventions. Yet, the field benefits from the approach observed in EIPH and, particularly, in health decision making. Descript...

show abstract

“…The systematic review process within the field of nutrition has been described by others [ 4 , 5 ]. Briefly, a systematic review is a structured process to comprehensively identify, examine, compare, and synthesize available literature.…”

Section: Promoting Consideration Of the Totality Of The Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

Vitamin D: Moving Forward to Address Emerging Science

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The science surrounding vitamin D presents both challenges and opportunities. Although many uncertainties are associated with the understandings concerning vitamin D, including its physiological function, the effects of excessive intake, and its role in health, it is at the same time a major interest in the research and health communities. The approach to evaluating and interpreting the available evidence about vitamin D should be founded on the quality of the data and on the conclusions that take into account the totality of the evidence. In addition, these activities can be used to identify critical data gaps and to help structure future research. The Office of Dietary Supplements (ODS) at the National Institutes of Health has as part of its mission the goal of supporting research and dialogues for topics with uncertain data, including vitamin D. This review considers vitamin D in the context of systematically addressing the uncertainty and in identifying research needs through the filter of the work of ODS. The focus includes the role of systematic reviews, activities that encompass considerations of the totality of the evidence, and collaborative activities to clarify unknowns or to fix methodological problems, as well as a case study using the relationship between cancer and vitamin D.

show abstract

Use and Applications of Systematic Reviews in Public Health Nutrition

Cited by 27 publications

References 35 publications

Scope and quality of Cochrane reviews of nutrition interventions: a cross-sectional study

Scope and quality of Cochrane reviews of nutrition interventions: a cross-sectional study

Da prática baseada em evidências para a saúde coletiva informada por evidencias: revisão narrativa

Vitamin D: Moving Forward to Address Emerging Science

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About