






Item type: | Article | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Journal or Publication Title: | Advances in Nutrition: An International Review Journal | ||||
Publisher: | OXFORD UNIV PRESS | ||||
Place of Publication: | OXFORD | ||||
Volume: | 7 | ||||
Number of Issue or Book Chapter: | 6 | ||||
Page Range: | pp. 994-1004 | ||||
Date: | 2016 | ||||
Institutions: | Medicine > Institut für Epidemiologie und Präventivmedizin | ||||
Identification Number: |
| ||||
Keywords: | OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE IMPLICATIONS; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; NEWCASTLE-OTTAWA SCALE; SHOWED LOW RELIABILITY; CARDIOVASCULAR-DISEASE; INDIVIDUAL REVIEWERS; PUBLICATION BIAS; RISK-FACTORS; FUNNEL PLOT; FATTY-ACIDS; meta-analysis; meta-evidence; nutrition; reliability; scoring | ||||
Dewey Decimal Classification: | 600 Technology > 610 Medical sciences Medicine | ||||
Status: | Published | ||||
Refereed: | Yes, this version has been refereed | ||||
Created at the University of Regensburg: | Yes | ||||
Item ID: | 42831 |
Abstract
The objective of this study was to develop a scoring system (NutriGrade) to evaluate the quality of evidence of randomized controlled trial (RCT) and cohort study meta-analyses in nutrition research, building upon previous tools and expert recommendations. NutriGrade aims to assess the meta-evidence of an association or effect between different nutrition factors and outcomes, taking into account ...

Abstract
The objective of this study was to develop a scoring system (NutriGrade) to evaluate the quality of evidence of randomized controlled trial (RCT) and cohort study meta-analyses in nutrition research, building upon previous tools and expert recommendations. NutriGrade aims to assess the meta-evidence of an association or effect between different nutrition factors and outcomes, taking into account nutrition research-specific requirements not considered by other tools. In a pretest study, 6 randomly selected meta-analyses investigating diet-disease relations were evaluated with NutriGrade by 5 independent raters. After revision, NutriGrade was applied by the same raters to 30 randomly selected meta-analyses in the same thematic area. The reliability of ratings of NutriGrade items was calculated with the use of a multirater k, and reliability of the total (summed scores) was calculated with the use of intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). The following categories for meta-evidence evaluation were established: high (8-10), moderate (6-7.99), low (4-5.99), and very low (0-3.99). The NutriGrade scoring system (maximum of 10 points) comprises the following items: 1) risk of bias, study quality, and study limitations, 2) precision, 3) heterogeneity, 4) directness, 5) publication bias, 6) funding bias, 7) study design, 8) effect size, and 9) dose-response. The NutriGrade score varied between 2.9 (very lowmeta-evidence) and 8.8 (high meta-evidence) for meta-analyses of RCTs, and it ranged between 3.1 and 8.8 for meta-analyses of cohort studies. The k value of the ratings for each scoring item varied from 0.32 (95% CI: 0.22, 0.42) for risk of bias for cohort studies and 0.95 (95% CI: 0.91, 0.99) for study design, with a mean k of 0.66 (95% CI: 0.53, 0.79). The ICC of the total score was 0.81 (95% CI: 0.69, 0.90). The NutriGrade scoring system showed good agreement and reliability. The initial findings regarding the performance of this newly established scoring system need further evaluation in independent analyses.
Metadata last modified: 17 Mar 2020 12:06