Using risk of bias domains to identify opportunities for improvement in food- and nutrition-related research: An evaluation of research type and design, year of publication, and source of funding
This retrospective cross-sectional study aimed to identify opportunities for improvement in food and nutrition research by examining risk of bias (ROB) domains. Ratings were extracted from critical appraisal records for 5675 studies used in systematic reviews conducted by three organizations. Variab...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2018-07, Vol.13 (7), p.e0197425-e0197425 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | e0197425 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 7 |
| container_start_page | e0197425 |
| container_title | PloS one |
| container_volume | 13 |
| creator | Myers, E F Parrott, J S Splett, P Chung, M Handu, D |
| description | This retrospective cross-sectional study aimed to identify opportunities for improvement in food and nutrition research by examining risk of bias (ROB) domains.
Ratings were extracted from critical appraisal records for 5675 studies used in systematic reviews conducted by three organizations. Variables were as follows: ROB domains defined by the Cochrane Collaboration (Selection, Performance, Detection, Attrition, and Reporting), publication year, research type (intervention or observation) and specific design, funder, and overall quality rating (positive, neutral, or negative). Appraisal instrument questions were mapped to ROB domains. The kappa statistic was used to determine consistency when multiple ROB ratings were available. Binary logistic regression and multinomial logistic regression were used to predict overall quality and ROB domains.
Studies represented a wide variety of research topics (clinical nutrition, food safety, dietary patterns, and dietary supplements) among 15 different research designs with a balance of intervention (49%) and observation (51%) types, published between 1930 and 2015 (64% between 2000-2009). Duplicate ratings (10%) were consistent (κ = 0.86-0.94). Selection and Performance domain criteria were least likely to be met (57.9% to 60.1%). Selection, Detection, and Performance ROB ratings predicted neutral or negative quality compared to positive quality (p |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0197425 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2064780588</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A545525204</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_99e8c33580114217a4ebbd9d584db1c0</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A545525204</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-4f571eb74b84003652d2270ca117437f880a7a39d9315c2ab855b5fb0ffbfd943</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk12L1DAUhoso7rr6D0QDgijsjPlomtYLYVj8GFhYUNfbkOZjJmub1CRdnN_nHzOdnV1mZC-kFy3nPO97Tk5ziuI5gnNEGHp35cfgRDcfvNNziBpWYvqgOEYNwbMKQ_Jw7_uoeBLjFYSU1FX1uDjCTcMog_S4-HMZrVuBYONP4A1orYhA-V5YF0HywCrtkjUb4IfBhzQ6m6yOwPgAbD8Ef637DADrcsirGRBOATemkDHvZkF3ImkFgo5aBLl-DxYO6GvRjWLKTwVvUyBtBr2VKx3typ2CTY5PxDC2nZVbwekWiPngUk8pMzqVu39aPDKii_rZ7n1SXH76-P3sy-z84vPybHE-k1WD06w0lCHdsrKtSwhJRbHCmEEpEGIlYaauoWCCNKohiEos2prSlpoWGtMa1ZTkpHh54zt0PvLd_CPHsCpZDWldZ2J5QygvrvgQbC_Chnth-Tbgw4qLkKzsNG8aXUtCaA0RKjFiotRtqxpF61K1SMLs9WFXbWx7rWSecxDdgelhxtk1X_lrXkFCCKPZ4M3OIPhfo46J9zZK3XXCaT9u-86N5w5wRl_9g95_uh21EvkA1hmf68rJlC9oSSmmGE5Tmt9D5Ufp3sp8WY3N8QPB2wNBZpL-nVZijJEvv339f_bixyH7eo9da9GldfTdON2keAiWN6AMPsagzd2QEeTTrt1Og0-7xne7lmUv9n_Qneh2uchfEBgnLg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2064780588</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Using risk of bias domains to identify opportunities for improvement in food- and nutrition-related research: An evaluation of research type and design, year of publication, and source of funding</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</source><creator>Myers, E F ; Parrott, J S ; Splett, P ; Chung, M ; Handu, D</creator><creatorcontrib>Myers, E F ; Parrott, J S ; Splett, P ; Chung, M ; Handu, D</creatorcontrib><description>This retrospective cross-sectional study aimed to identify opportunities for improvement in food and nutrition research by examining risk of bias (ROB) domains.
Ratings were extracted from critical appraisal records for 5675 studies used in systematic reviews conducted by three organizations. Variables were as follows: ROB domains defined by the Cochrane Collaboration (Selection, Performance, Detection, Attrition, and Reporting), publication year, research type (intervention or observation) and specific design, funder, and overall quality rating (positive, neutral, or negative). Appraisal instrument questions were mapped to ROB domains. The kappa statistic was used to determine consistency when multiple ROB ratings were available. Binary logistic regression and multinomial logistic regression were used to predict overall quality and ROB domains.
Studies represented a wide variety of research topics (clinical nutrition, food safety, dietary patterns, and dietary supplements) among 15 different research designs with a balance of intervention (49%) and observation (51%) types, published between 1930 and 2015 (64% between 2000-2009). Duplicate ratings (10%) were consistent (κ = 0.86-0.94). Selection and Performance domain criteria were least likely to be met (57.9% to 60.1%). Selection, Detection, and Performance ROB ratings predicted neutral or negative quality compared to positive quality (p<0.001). Funder, year, and research design were significant predictors of ROB. Some sources of funding predicted increased ROB (p<0.001) for Selection (interventional: industry only and none/not reported; observational: other only and none/not reported) and Reporting (observational: university only and other only). Reduced ROB was predicted by combined and other-only funding for intervention research (p<0.005). Performance ROB domain ratings started significantly improving in 2000; others improved after 1990 (p<0.001). Research designs with higher ROB were nonrandomized intervention and time series designs compared to RCT and prospective cohort designs respectively (p<0.001).
Opportunities for improvement in food and nutrition research are in the Selection, Performance, and Detection ROB domains.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0197425</identifier><identifier>PMID: 29975705</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Analysis ; Bias ; Bias (Statistics) ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Clinical nutrition ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; Diet ; Dietary supplements ; Epidemiology ; Food ; Food research ; Food safety ; Forecasts and trends ; Funding ; Humans ; Interprofessional education ; Intervention ; Literature reviews ; Medicine ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Nutrition ; Nutrition research ; Nutrition therapy ; Nutritional Sciences - trends ; Nutritional Status ; Nutritional therapy ; Peer Review, Research ; Public private partnerships ; Publication Bias - trends ; Ratings ; Ratings & rankings ; Research and Analysis Methods ; Research design ; Research Report ; Retrospective Studies ; Science Policy ; Statistical analysis ; Studies ; Systematic review ; Trust ; Values</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2018-07, Vol.13 (7), p.e0197425-e0197425</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2018 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2018 Myers et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2018 Myers et al 2018 Myers et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-4f571eb74b84003652d2270ca117437f880a7a39d9315c2ab855b5fb0ffbfd943</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-4f571eb74b84003652d2270ca117437f880a7a39d9315c2ab855b5fb0ffbfd943</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-0897-1288</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6033375/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6033375/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,860,881,2096,2915,23845,27901,27902,53766,53768,79342,79343</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29975705$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Myers, E F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Parrott, J S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Splett, P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chung, M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Handu, D</creatorcontrib><title>Using risk of bias domains to identify opportunities for improvement in food- and nutrition-related research: An evaluation of research type and design, year of publication, and source of funding</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>This retrospective cross-sectional study aimed to identify opportunities for improvement in food and nutrition research by examining risk of bias (ROB) domains.
Ratings were extracted from critical appraisal records for 5675 studies used in systematic reviews conducted by three organizations. Variables were as follows: ROB domains defined by the Cochrane Collaboration (Selection, Performance, Detection, Attrition, and Reporting), publication year, research type (intervention or observation) and specific design, funder, and overall quality rating (positive, neutral, or negative). Appraisal instrument questions were mapped to ROB domains. The kappa statistic was used to determine consistency when multiple ROB ratings were available. Binary logistic regression and multinomial logistic regression were used to predict overall quality and ROB domains.
Studies represented a wide variety of research topics (clinical nutrition, food safety, dietary patterns, and dietary supplements) among 15 different research designs with a balance of intervention (49%) and observation (51%) types, published between 1930 and 2015 (64% between 2000-2009). Duplicate ratings (10%) were consistent (κ = 0.86-0.94). Selection and Performance domain criteria were least likely to be met (57.9% to 60.1%). Selection, Detection, and Performance ROB ratings predicted neutral or negative quality compared to positive quality (p<0.001). Funder, year, and research design were significant predictors of ROB. Some sources of funding predicted increased ROB (p<0.001) for Selection (interventional: industry only and none/not reported; observational: other only and none/not reported) and Reporting (observational: university only and other only). Reduced ROB was predicted by combined and other-only funding for intervention research (p<0.005). Performance ROB domain ratings started significantly improving in 2000; others improved after 1990 (p<0.001). Research designs with higher ROB were nonrandomized intervention and time series designs compared to RCT and prospective cohort designs respectively (p<0.001).
Opportunities for improvement in food and nutrition research are in the Selection, Performance, and Detection ROB domains.</description><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Bias</subject><subject>Bias (Statistics)</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Clinical nutrition</subject><subject>Cross-Sectional Studies</subject><subject>Diet</subject><subject>Dietary supplements</subject><subject>Epidemiology</subject><subject>Food</subject><subject>Food research</subject><subject>Food safety</subject><subject>Forecasts and trends</subject><subject>Funding</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Interprofessional education</subject><subject>Intervention</subject><subject>Literature reviews</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Nutrition</subject><subject>Nutrition research</subject><subject>Nutrition therapy</subject><subject>Nutritional Sciences - trends</subject><subject>Nutritional Status</subject><subject>Nutritional therapy</subject><subject>Peer Review, Research</subject><subject>Public private partnerships</subject><subject>Publication Bias - trends</subject><subject>Ratings</subject><subject>Ratings & rankings</subject><subject>Research and Analysis Methods</subject><subject>Research design</subject><subject>Research Report</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Science Policy</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><subject>Trust</subject><subject>Values</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk12L1DAUhoso7rr6D0QDgijsjPlomtYLYVj8GFhYUNfbkOZjJmub1CRdnN_nHzOdnV1mZC-kFy3nPO97Tk5ziuI5gnNEGHp35cfgRDcfvNNziBpWYvqgOEYNwbMKQ_Jw7_uoeBLjFYSU1FX1uDjCTcMog_S4-HMZrVuBYONP4A1orYhA-V5YF0HywCrtkjUb4IfBhzQ6m6yOwPgAbD8Ef637DADrcsirGRBOATemkDHvZkF3ImkFgo5aBLl-DxYO6GvRjWLKTwVvUyBtBr2VKx3typ2CTY5PxDC2nZVbwekWiPngUk8pMzqVu39aPDKii_rZ7n1SXH76-P3sy-z84vPybHE-k1WD06w0lCHdsrKtSwhJRbHCmEEpEGIlYaauoWCCNKohiEos2prSlpoWGtMa1ZTkpHh54zt0PvLd_CPHsCpZDWldZ2J5QygvrvgQbC_Chnth-Tbgw4qLkKzsNG8aXUtCaA0RKjFiotRtqxpF61K1SMLs9WFXbWx7rWSecxDdgelhxtk1X_lrXkFCCKPZ4M3OIPhfo46J9zZK3XXCaT9u-86N5w5wRl_9g95_uh21EvkA1hmf68rJlC9oSSmmGE5Tmt9D5Ufp3sp8WY3N8QPB2wNBZpL-nVZijJEvv339f_bixyH7eo9da9GldfTdON2keAiWN6AMPsagzd2QEeTTrt1Og0-7xne7lmUv9n_Qneh2uchfEBgnLg</recordid><startdate>20180705</startdate><enddate>20180705</enddate><creator>Myers, E F</creator><creator>Parrott, J S</creator><creator>Splett, P</creator><creator>Chung, M</creator><creator>Handu, D</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0897-1288</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20180705</creationdate><title>Using risk of bias domains to identify opportunities for improvement in food- and nutrition-related research: An evaluation of research type and design, year of publication, and source of funding</title><author>Myers, E F ; Parrott, J S ; Splett, P ; Chung, M ; Handu, D</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-4f571eb74b84003652d2270ca117437f880a7a39d9315c2ab855b5fb0ffbfd943</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Bias</topic><topic>Bias (Statistics)</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Clinical nutrition</topic><topic>Cross-Sectional Studies</topic><topic>Diet</topic><topic>Dietary supplements</topic><topic>Epidemiology</topic><topic>Food</topic><topic>Food research</topic><topic>Food safety</topic><topic>Forecasts and trends</topic><topic>Funding</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Interprofessional education</topic><topic>Intervention</topic><topic>Literature reviews</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Nutrition</topic><topic>Nutrition research</topic><topic>Nutrition therapy</topic><topic>Nutritional Sciences - trends</topic><topic>Nutritional Status</topic><topic>Nutritional therapy</topic><topic>Peer Review, Research</topic><topic>Public private partnerships</topic><topic>Publication Bias - trends</topic><topic>Ratings</topic><topic>Ratings & rankings</topic><topic>Research and Analysis Methods</topic><topic>Research design</topic><topic>Research Report</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Science Policy</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><topic>Trust</topic><topic>Values</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Myers, E F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Parrott, J S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Splett, P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chung, M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Handu, D</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Myers, E F</au><au>Parrott, J S</au><au>Splett, P</au><au>Chung, M</au><au>Handu, D</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Using risk of bias domains to identify opportunities for improvement in food- and nutrition-related research: An evaluation of research type and design, year of publication, and source of funding</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2018-07-05</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>13</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>e0197425</spage><epage>e0197425</epage><pages>e0197425-e0197425</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>This retrospective cross-sectional study aimed to identify opportunities for improvement in food and nutrition research by examining risk of bias (ROB) domains.
Ratings were extracted from critical appraisal records for 5675 studies used in systematic reviews conducted by three organizations. Variables were as follows: ROB domains defined by the Cochrane Collaboration (Selection, Performance, Detection, Attrition, and Reporting), publication year, research type (intervention or observation) and specific design, funder, and overall quality rating (positive, neutral, or negative). Appraisal instrument questions were mapped to ROB domains. The kappa statistic was used to determine consistency when multiple ROB ratings were available. Binary logistic regression and multinomial logistic regression were used to predict overall quality and ROB domains.
Studies represented a wide variety of research topics (clinical nutrition, food safety, dietary patterns, and dietary supplements) among 15 different research designs with a balance of intervention (49%) and observation (51%) types, published between 1930 and 2015 (64% between 2000-2009). Duplicate ratings (10%) were consistent (κ = 0.86-0.94). Selection and Performance domain criteria were least likely to be met (57.9% to 60.1%). Selection, Detection, and Performance ROB ratings predicted neutral or negative quality compared to positive quality (p<0.001). Funder, year, and research design were significant predictors of ROB. Some sources of funding predicted increased ROB (p<0.001) for Selection (interventional: industry only and none/not reported; observational: other only and none/not reported) and Reporting (observational: university only and other only). Reduced ROB was predicted by combined and other-only funding for intervention research (p<0.005). Performance ROB domain ratings started significantly improving in 2000; others improved after 1990 (p<0.001). Research designs with higher ROB were nonrandomized intervention and time series designs compared to RCT and prospective cohort designs respectively (p<0.001).
Opportunities for improvement in food and nutrition research are in the Selection, Performance, and Detection ROB domains.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>29975705</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0197425</doi><tpages>e0197425</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0897-1288</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
| ispartof | PloS one, 2018-07, Vol.13 (7), p.e0197425-e0197425 |
| issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_plos_journals_2064780588 |
| source | MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry; Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
| subjects | Analysis Bias Bias (Statistics) Biology and Life Sciences Clinical nutrition Cross-Sectional Studies Diet Dietary supplements Epidemiology Food Food research Food safety Forecasts and trends Funding Humans Interprofessional education Intervention Literature reviews Medicine Medicine and Health Sciences Nutrition Nutrition research Nutrition therapy Nutritional Sciences - trends Nutritional Status Nutritional therapy Peer Review, Research Public private partnerships Publication Bias - trends Ratings Ratings & rankings Research and Analysis Methods Research design Research Report Retrospective Studies Science Policy Statistical analysis Studies Systematic review Trust Values |
| title | Using risk of bias domains to identify opportunities for improvement in food- and nutrition-related research: An evaluation of research type and design, year of publication, and source of funding |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-10T11%3A20%3A34IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Using%20risk%20of%20bias%20domains%20to%20identify%20opportunities%20for%20improvement%20in%20food-%20and%20nutrition-related%20research:%20An%20evaluation%20of%20research%20type%20and%20design,%20year%20of%20publication,%20and%20source%20of%20funding&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Myers,%20E%20F&rft.date=2018-07-05&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=e0197425&rft.epage=e0197425&rft.pages=e0197425-e0197425&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0197425&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA545525204%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2064780588&rft_id=info:pmid/29975705&rft_galeid=A545525204&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_99e8c33580114217a4ebbd9d584db1c0&rfr_iscdi=true |