Are systematic reviews addressing nutrition for cancer prevention trustworthy? A systematic survey of quality and risk of bias

Author:

Zajac Joanna F1,Storman Dawid1ORCID,Swierz Mateusz J1,Koperny Magdalena2,Weglarz Paulina1,Staskiewicz Wojciech3,Gorecka Magdalena3,Skuza Anna3,Wach Adam3,Kaluzinska Klaudia3,Bochenek-Cibor Justyna4,Johnston Bradley C5,Bala Malgorzata M1ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Chair of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Department of Hygiene and Dietetics, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Krakow, Poland

2. Chair of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Department of Epidemiology, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Krakow, Poland

3. Students’ Scientific Group of Systematic Reviews, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Krakow, Poland

4. Department of Radiation Oncology, St Lukas Hospital, Tarnów, Poland

5. Department of Nutrition and the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA; and with the Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

Abstract

Abstract Context The last 30 years have yielded a vast number of systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses addressing the link between nutrition and cancer risk. Objective The aim of this survey was to assess overall quality and potential for risk of bias in systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) that examined the role of nutrition in cancer prevention. Data Sources MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched (last search performed November 2018). Study Selection Studies identified as SRMAs that investigated a nutritional or dietary intervention or exposure for cancer prevention in the general population or in people at risk of cancer and in which primary studies had a comparison group were eligible for inclusion. Screening, data extraction, and quality assessment were conducted independently by 2 reviewers. Data Extraction Altogether, 101 studies were randomly selected for analysis. The methodological quality and risk of bias were evaluated using the AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS tools, respectively. Results Most SRMAs included observational studies. Less than 10% of SRMAs reported a study protocol, and only 51% of SRMAs assessed the risk of bias in primary studies. Most studies conducted subgroup analyses, but only a few reported tests of interaction or specified subgroups of interest a priori. Overall, according to AMSTAR-2, only 1% of SRMAs were of high quality, while 97% were of critically low quality. Only 3% had a low risk of bias, according to ROBIS. Conclusions This systematic survey revealed substantial limitations with respect to quality and risk of bias of SRMAs. SRMAs examining nutrition and cancer prevention cannot be considered trustworthy, and results should be interpreted with caution. Peer reviewers as well as users of SRMAs should be advised to use the AMSTAR-2 and/or ROBIS instruments to help to determine the overall quality and risk of bias of SRMAs. Systematic Review Registration PROSPERO registration number CRD42019121116.

Funder

National Science Centre, Krakow, Poland

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Nutrition and Dietetics,Medicine (miscellaneous)

Cited by 4 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3