Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Systematic reviews and meta-analysis in nutrition research

  • George A. Kelley (a1) and Kristi S. Kelley (a1)

Abstract

There exists an ever-increasing number of systematic reviews, with or without meta-analysis, in the field of nutrition. Concomitant with this increase is the increased use of such to guide future research as well as both practice and policy-based decisions. Given this increased production and consumption, a need exists to educate both producers and consumers of systematic reviews, with or without meta-analysis, on how to conduct and evaluate high-quality reviews of this nature in nutrition. The purpose of this paper is to try and address this gap. In the present manuscript, the different types of systematic reviews, with or without meta-analyses, are described as well as the description of the major elements, including methodology and interpretation, with a focus on nutrition. It is hoped that this non-technical information will be helpful to producers, reviewers and consumers of systematic reviews, with or without meta-analysis, in the field of nutrition.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Systematic reviews and meta-analysis in nutrition research
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Systematic reviews and meta-analysis in nutrition research
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Systematic reviews and meta-analysis in nutrition research
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Corresponding author

*Corresponding author: George A. Kelley, email gkelley@hsc.wvu.edu

References

Hide All
1. Sacks, HS, Berrier, J, Reitman, D, et al. (1987) Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. N Engl J Med 316, 450455.
2. Zhang, Y, Akl, EA & Schunemann, HJ (2018) Using systematic reviews in guideline development: the GRADE approach. Res Synth Methods (epublication ahead of print version 14 July 2018).
3. Wasserstein, RL, Schirm, AL & Lazar, NA (2019) Moving to a world beyond “p < 0.05”. Am Stat 73, 119.
4. Daudt, HM, van Mossel, C & Scott, SJ (2013) Enhancing the scoping study methodology: a large, inter-professional team’s experience with Arksey and O’Malley’s framework. BMC Med Res Methodol 13, 48.
5. Amouzandeh, C, Fingland, D & Vidgen, HA (2019) A scoping review of the validity, reliability and conceptual alignment of food literacy measures for adults. Nutrients 11, E801.
6. Higgins, JPT & Green, S (editors) (2011) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration. www.cochrane-handbook.org
7. Tricco, AC, Lillie, E, Zarin, W, et al. (2018) PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation: the PRISMA-ScR statement. Ann Intern Med 169, 467473.
8. Agostoni, C, Guz-Mark, A, Marderfeld, L, et al. (2019) The long-term effects of dietary nutrient intakes during the first 2 years of life in healthy infants from developed countries: an umbrella review. Adv Nutr 10, 489501.
9. Ioannidis, JPA (2016) The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Milbank Q 94, 485514.
10. Kelley, GA & Kelley, KS (2018) Systematic reviews and cancer research: a suggested stepwise approach. BMC Cancer 18, 9.
11. Cochrane (2016) Editorial and publishing policy resource. http://community.cochrane.org/editorial-and-publishing-policy-resource (accessed November 2017).
12. Shojania, KG, Sampson, M, Ansari, MT, et al. (2007) Updating Systematic Reviews: Technical Review No. 16. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
13. Garner, P, Hopewell, S, Chandler, J, et al. (2016) When and how to update systematic reviews: consensus and checklist. BMJ 354, i3507.
14. Shea, BJ, Reeves, BC, Wells, G, et al. (2017) AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ 358, j4008.
15. Whiting, P, Savovic, J, Higgins, JP, et al. (2016) ROBIS: a new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. J Clin Epidemiol 69, 225234.
16. Guyatt, G, Oxman, AD, Akl, EA, et al. (2011) GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol 64, 383394.
17. Whiting, PF, Rutjes, AW, Westwood, ME, et al. (2011) QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 155, 529536.
18. McKenzie, JE & Brennan, SE (2017) Overviews of systematic reviews: great promise, greater challenge. Syst Rev 6, 185.
19. Lunny, C, Brennan, SE, McDonald, S, et al. (2017) Toward a comprehensive evidence map of overview of systematic review methods: paper 1-purpose, eligibility, search and data extraction. Syst Rev 6, 231.
20. Lunny, C, Brennan, SE, McDonald, S, et al. (2018) Toward a comprehensive evidence map of overview of systematic review methods: paper 2-risk of bias assessment; synthesis, presentation and summary of the findings; and assessment of the certainty of the evidence. Syst Rev 7, 31.
21. Ballard, M & Montgomery, P (2017) Risk of bias in overviews of reviews: a scoping review of methodological guidance and four-item checklist. Res Synth Methods 8, 92108.
22. Gates, A, Gates, M, Duarte, G, et al. (2018) Evaluation of the reliability, usability, and applicability of AMSTAR, AMSTAR 2, and ROBIS: protocol for a descriptive analytic study. Syst Rev 7, 85.
23. Pieper, D, Waltering, A, Holstiege, J, et al. (2018) Quality ratings of reviews in overviews: a comparison of reviews with and without dual (co-)authorship. Syst Rev 7, 63.
24. Hunt, H, Pollock, A, Campbell, P, et al. (2018) An introduction to overviews of reviews: planning a relevant research question and objective for an overview. Syst Rev 7, 39.
25. Fusar-Poli, P & Radua, J (2018) Ten simple rules for conducting umbrella reviews. Evid Based Ment Health 21, 95100.
26. Pollock, A, Campbell, P, Brunton, G, et al. (2017) Selecting and implementing overview methods: implications from five exemplar overviews. Syst Rev 6, 145.
27. Pieper, D, Pollock, M, Fernandes, RM, et al. (2017) Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions published 2012–2016: protocol for a systematic review. Syst Rev 6, 73.
28. Pollock, M, Fernandes, RM, Becker, LA, et al. (2016) What guidance is available for researchers conducting overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions? A scoping review and qualitative metasummary. Syst Rev 5, 190.
29. Calder, PC, Campoy, C, Eilander, A, et al. (2019) A systematic review of the effects of increasing arachidonic acid intake on PUFA status, metabolism and health-related outcomes in humans. Br J Nutr 121, 12011214.
30. Liberati, A, Altman, DG, Tetzlaff, J, et al. (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 151, W65W94.
31. Zhang, S, Zhang, F, Du, M, et al. (2019) Efficacy and safety of iron supplementation in patients with heart failure and iron deficiency: a meta-analysis. Br J Nutr 121, 841848.
32. Dekkers, OM, Vandenbroucke, JP, Cevallos, M, et al. (2019) COSMOS-E: guidance on conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies of etiology. PLoS Med 16, e1002742.
33. Gaksch, M, Jorde, R, Grimnes, G, et al. (2017) Vitamin D and mortality: individual participant data meta-analysis of standardized 25-hydroxyvitamin D in 26916 individuals from a European consortium. PLOS ONE 12, e0170791.
34. Riley, RD, Lambert, PC & Abo-Zaid, G (2010) Meta-analysis of individual participant data: rationale, conduct, and reporting. BMJ 340, c221.
35. Riley, RD (2010) Commentary: like it and lump it? Meta-analysis using individual participant data. Int J Epidemiol 39, 13591361.
36. Kelley, GA, Kelley, KS & Tran, ZV (2002) Retrieval of individual patient data for an exercise meta-analysis. Am J Med Sport 4, 350354.
37. Riley, RD, Simmonds, MC & Look, MP (2007) Evidence synthesis combining individual patient data and aggregate data: a systematic review identified current practice and possible methods. J Clin Epidemiol 60, 431439.
38. Kelley, GA & Kelley, KS (2016) Retrieval of individual participant data for exercise meta-analyses may not be worth the time and effort. Biomed Res Int 2016, 5059041.
39. Polanin, JR (2018) Efforts to retrieve individual participant data sets for use in a meta-analysis result in moderate data sharing but many data sets remain missing. J Clin Epidemiol 98, 157159.
40. Riley, RD, Lambert, PC, Staessen, JA, et al. (2008) Meta-analysis of continuous outcomes combining individual patient data and aggregate data. Stat Med 27, 18701893.
41. Steinberg, KK, Smith, SJ, Stroup, DF, et al. (1997) Comparison of effect size estimates from a meta-analysis of summary data from published studies and from a meta-analysis using individual patient data for ovarian cancer studies. Am J Epidemiol 145, 917925.
42. Cooper, H & Patall, EA (2009) The relative benefits of meta-analysis conducted with individual participant data versus aggregated data. Psychol Methods 14, 165176.
43. Olkin, I & Sampson, A (1998) Comparison of meta-analysis versus analysis of variance of individual patient data. Biometrics 54, 317322.
44. Mathew, T & Nordstrom, K (1999) On the equivalence of meta-analysis using literature and using individual patient data. Biometrics 55, 12211223.
45. Tudur Smith, C, Marcucci, M, Nolan, SJ, et al. (2016) Individual participant data meta-analyses compared with meta-analyses based on aggregate data. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, issue 9, MR000007.
46. Smelt, AF, Gussekloo, J, Bermingham, LW, et al. (2018) The effect of vitamin B12 and folic acid supplementation on routine haematological parameters in older people: an individual participant data meta-analysis. Eur J Clin Nutr 72, 785795.
47. Stewart, LA, Clarke, M, Rovers, M, et al. (2015) Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analyses of individual participant data: the PRISMA-IPD Statement. JAMA 313, 16571665.
48. Tierney, JF, Vale, C, Riley, R, et al. (2015) Individual participant data (IPD) meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: guidance on their use. PLoS Med 12, e1001855.
49. Schwingshackl, L, Buyken, A & Chaimani, A (2019) Network meta-analysis reaches nutrition research. Eur J Nutr 58, 13.
50. Galaviz, KI, Weber, MB, Straus, A, et al. (2018) Global diabetes prevention interventions: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of the real-world impact on incidence, weight, and glucose. Diabetes Care 41, 15261534.
51. Hutton, B, Salanti, G, Caldwell, DM, et al. (2015) The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med 162, 777784.
52. Laws, A, Kendall, R & Hawkins, N (2014) A comparison of national guidelines for network meta-analysis. Value Health 17, 642654.
53. Rouse, B, Chaimani, A & Li, TJ (2017) Network meta-analysis: an introduction for clinicians. Intern Emerg Med 12, 103111.
54. Riley, RD, Jackson, D, Salanti, G, et al. (2017) Multivariate and network meta-analysis of multiple outcomes and multiple treatments: rationale, concepts, and examples. BMJ 358, j3932.
55. Doi, SAR & Barendregt, JJ (2018) A generalized pairwise modelling framework for network meta-analysis. Int J Evid Based Healthc 16, 187194.
56. Brittain, EH, Fay, MP & Follmann, DA (2012) A valid formulation of the analysis of noninferiority trials under random effects meta-analysis. Biostatistics 13, 637649.
57. Schmidli, H, Wandel, S & Neuenschwander, B (2013) The network meta-analytic-predictive approach to non-inferiority trials. Stat Methods Med Res 22, 219240.
58. Acuna, SA, Chesney, TR, Ramjist, JK, et al. (2019) Laparoscopic versus open resection for rectal cancer: a noninferiority meta-analysis of quality of surgical resection outcomes. Ann Surg 269, 849855.
59. Acuna, SA, Chesney, TR, Amarasekera, ST, et al. (2018) Defining non-inferiority margins for quality of surgical resection for rectal cancer: a Delphi consensus study. Ann Surg Oncol 25, 31713178.
60. Liberati, A & D’Amico, R (2010) Commentary: the debate on non-inferiority trials: ‘when meta-analysis alone is not helpful’. Int J Epidemiol 39, 15821583.
61. Beller, EM, Glasziou, PP, Altman, DG, et al. (2013) PRISMA for abstracts: reporting systematic reviews in journal and conference abstracts. PLoS Med 10, e1001419.
62. Saint, S, Christakis, DA, Saha, S, et al. (2000) Journal reading habits of internists. J Gen Intern Med 15, 881884.
63. Yamamoto, JM, Kellett, JE, Balsells, M, et al. (2018) Gestational diabetes mellitus and diet: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials examining the impact of modified dietary interventions on maternal glucose control and neonatal birth weight. Diabetes Care 41, 13461361.
64. Page, MJ, Shamseer, L & Tricco, AC (2018) Registration of systematic reviews in PROSPERO: 30,000 records and counting. Syst Rev 7, 32.
65. Stewart, L, Moher, D & Shekelle, P (2012) Why prospective registration of systematic reviews makes sense. Syst Rev 1, 7.
66. Asghari, G, Farhadnejad, H, Hosseinpanah, F, et al. (2018) Effect of vitamin D supplementation on serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol. BMJ Open 8, e021636.
67. Shamseer, L, Moher, D, Clarke, M, et al. (2015) Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ 349, g7647.
68. Denova-Gutierrez, E, Mendez-Sanchez, L, Munoz-Aguirre, P, et al. (2018) Dietary patterns, bone mineral density, and risk of fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nutrients 10, E1922.
69. Hidayat, K, Chen, GC, Zhang, R, et al. (2016) Calcium intake and breast cancer risk: meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Br J Nutr 116, 158166.
70. van Driel, ML, De Sutter, A, De Maeseneer, J, et al. (2009) Searching for unpublished trials in Cochrane reviews may not be worth the effort. J Clin Epidemiol 62, 838844.
71. Bramer, WM, Rethlefsen, ML, Kleijnen, J, et al. (2017) Optimal database combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews: a prospective exploratory study. Syst Rev 6, 245.
72. Vine, R (2006) Google Scholar. J Med Libr Assoc 94, 9799.
73. Burnham, JF (2006) Scopus database: a review. Biomed Digit Libr 3, 1.
74. Cohen, J (1968) Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychol Bull 70, 213220.
75. Pedder, H, Sarri, G, Keeney, E, et al. (2016) Data extraction for complex meta-analysis (DECiMAL) guide. Syst Rev 5, 212.
76. Sanderson, S, Tatt, ID & Higgins, JP (2007) Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: a systematic review and annotated bibliography. Int J Epidemiol 36, 666676.
77. Seehra, J, Pandis, N, Koletsi, D, et al. (2016) Use of quality assessment tools in systematic reviews was varied and inconsistent. J Clin Epidemiol 69, 179184.
78. Higgins, JPT, Sterne, JAC, Savović, J, et al. (2016) A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 10, Suppl. 1, 2931.
79. Sterne, JA, Hernán, MA, Reeves, BC, et al. (2016) ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 355, i4919.
80. Firth, J, Marx, W, Dash, S, et al. (2019) The effects of dietary improvement on symptoms of depression and anxiety: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Psychosom Med 81, 265280.
81. Borenstein, M, Hedges, L, Higgins, J, et al. (2009) Introduction to Meta-analysis. Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.
82. Sacks, HS, Chalmers, TC, Smith, H (1982) Randomized versus historical controls for clinical trials. Am J Med 72, 233240.
83. Schulz, KF, Chalmers, I, Hayes, R, et al. (1995) Empirical evidence of bias: dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. J Am Med Assoc 273, 408412.
84. DerSimonian, R & Kacker, R (2007) Random-effects model for meta-analysis of clinical trials: an update. Contemp Clin Trials 28, 105114.
85. Dersimonian, R & Laird, N (1986) Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 7, 177188.
86. Dersimonian, R & Laird, N (2015) Meta-analysis in clinical trials revisited. Contemp Clin Trials 45, 139145.
87. Biggerstaff, BJ & Tweedie, RL (1997) Incorporating variability in estimates of heterogeneity in the random effects model in meta-analysis. Stat Med 16, 753768.
88. Sidik, K & Jonkman, JN (2002) A simple confidence interval for meta-analysis. Stat Med 21, 31533159.
89. Sidik, K & Jonkman, JN (2007) A comparison of heterogeneity variance estimators in combining results of studies. Stat Med 26, 19641981.
90. Zeng, D & Lin, DY (2015) On random-effects meta-analysis. Biometrika 102, 281294.
91. Poole, C & Greenland, S (1999) Random-effects meta-analyses are not always conservative. Am J Epidemiol 150, 469475.
92. Doi, SA, Barendregt, JJ, Khan, S, et al. (2015) Advances in the meta-analysis of heterogeneous clinical trials I: the inverse variance heterogeneity model. Contemp Clin Trials 45, 130138.
93. Doi, SA, Barendregt, JJ, Khan, S, et al. (2015) Advances in the meta-analysis of heterogeneous clinical trials II: the quality effects model. Contemp Clin Trials 45, 123129.
94. Doi, SAR, Furuya-Kanamori, L, Thalib, L, et al. (2017) Meta-analysis in evidence-based healthcare: a paradigm shift away from random effects is overdue. Int J Evid Based Healthc 15, 152160.
95. Barendregt, JJ & Doi, SA (2016) Meta XL, 5.3 ed. Queensland, Australia: EpiGear International Pty Ltd.
96. Amrhein, V, Greenland, S & McShane, B (2019) Scientists rise up against statistical significance. Nature 567, 305307.
97. Higgins, JP, Thompson, SG & Spiegelhalter, DJ (2009) A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis. J R Stat Soc Series A 172, 137159.
98. Partlett, C & Riley, RD (2017) Random effects meta-analysis: coverage performance of 95% confidence and prediction intervals following REML estimation. Stat Med 36, 301317.
99. Kriston, L (2013) Dealing with clinical heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Assumptions, methods, interpretation. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res 22, 115.
100. Cariolou, M, Cupp, MA, Evangelou, E, et al. (2019) Importance of vitamin D in acute and critically ill children with subgroup analyses of sepsis and respiratory tract infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open 9, e027666.
101. Cochran, WG (1954) The combination of estimates from different experiments. Biometrics 10, 101129.
102. Higgins, JPT, Thompson, SG, Deeks, JJ, et al. (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327, 557560.
103. Ioannidis, JP, Patsopoulos, NA & Evangelou, E (2007) Uncertainty in heterogeneity estimates in meta-analyses. BMJ 335, 914916.
104. Kelley, GA, Kelley, KS, Roberts, S, et al. (2012) Comparison of aerobic exercise, diet or both on lipids and lipoproteins in adults: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clin Nutr 31, 156167.
105. Egger, M, Davey Smith, G, Schneider, M, et al. (1997) Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple graphical test. BMJ 315, 629634.
106. Sterne, JAC, Gavaghan, D & Egger, M (2000) Publication and related bias in meta-analysis: power of statistical tests and prevalence in the literature. J Clin Epidemiol 53, 11191129.
107. Furuya-Kanamori, L, Barendregt, JJ & Doi, SAR (2018) A new improved graphical and quantitative method for detecting bias in meta-analysis. Int J Evid Based Healthc 16, 195203.
108. Lau, J, Ioannidis, JP, Terrin, N, et al. (2006) The case of the misleading funnel plot. BMJ 333, 597600.
109. Sterne, JA, Sutton, AJ, Ioannidis, JP, et al. (2011) Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 343, d4002.
110. Mallett, S & Clarke, M (2002) The typical Cochrane review. How many trials? How many participants? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 18, 820823.
111. Clarke, M, Brice, A & Chalmers, I (2014) Accumulating research: a systematic account of how cumulative meta-analyses would have provided knowledge, improved health, reduced harm and saved resources. PLOS ONE 9, e102670.
112. Xu, C & Doi, SAR (2018) The robust error meta-regression method for dose-response meta-analysis. Int J Evid Based Healthc 16, 138144.
113. Lopez-Lopez, JA, Van den Noortgate, W, Tanner-Smith, EE, et al. (2017) Assessing meta-regression methods for examining moderator relationships with dependent effect sizes: a Monte Carlo simulation. Res Synth Methods 8, 435450.
114. Higgins, J, Thompson, S, Deeks, J, et al. (2002) Statistical heterogeneity in systematic reviews of clinical trials: a critical appraisal of guidelines and practice. J Health Serv Res Policy 7, 5161.
115. Fu, R, Gartlehner, G, Grant, M, et al. (2011) Conducting quantitative synthesis when comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the Effective Health Care Program. J Clin Epidemiol 64, 11871197.
116. Morze, J, Schwedhelm, C, Bencic, A, et al. (2019) Chocolate and risk of chronic disease: a systematic review and dose–response meta-analysis. Eur J Nutr (epublication ahead of print version 25 February 2019).
117. Greenland, S & Longnecker, MP (1992) Methods for trend estimation from summarized dose-response data, with applications to meta-analysis. Am J Epidemiol 135, 13011309.
118. Hartemink, N, Boshuizen, HC, Nagelkerke, NJ, et al. (2006) Combining risk estimates from observational studies with different exposure cutpoints: a meta-analysis on body mass index and diabetes type 2. Am J Epidemiol 163, 10421052.
119. da Costa, BR, Rutjes, AW, Johnston, BC, et al. (2012) Methods to convert continuous outcomes into odds ratios of treatment response and numbers needed to treat: meta-epidemiological study. Int J Epidemiol 41, 14451459.
120. Cohen, J (1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Academic Press.
121. Hasselblad, V & Hedges, LV (1995) Meta-analysis of screening and diagnostic tests. Psychol Bull 117, 167178.
122. Stamler, J, Rose, G, Stamler, R, et al. (1989) INTERSALT study findings. Public health and medical care implications. Hypertension 14, 570577.
123. Guyatt, GH, Oxman, AD, Vist, GE, et al. (2008) GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 336, 924926.
124. Baranski, M, Srednicka-Tober, D, Volakakis, N, et al. (2014) Higher antioxidant and lower cadmium concentrations and lower incidence of pesticide residues in organically grown crops: a systematic literature review and meta-analyses. Br J Nutr 112, 794811.
125. Rucker, G & Schumacher, M (2008) Simpson’s paradox visualized: the example of the rosiglitazone meta-analysis. BMC Med Res Methodol 8, 34.

Keywords

Systematic reviews and meta-analysis in nutrition research

  • George A. Kelley (a1) and Kristi S. Kelley (a1)

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed