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

Nutrition Journal

Research

Celeste E. Naude¹  Jimmy Volmink²  Solange Durao³  Abigail Harper⁴ 

[1] Centre for Evidence-based Health Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Francie van Zijl Drive, 7505, Tygerberg, South Africa;Centre for Evidence-based Health Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Francie van Zijl Drive, 7505, Tygerberg, South Africa;Cochrane South Africa, South African Medical Research Council, Francie van Zijl Drive, 7505, Tygerberg, South Africa;Cochrane South Africa, South African Medical Research Council, Francie van Zijl Drive, 7505, Tygerberg, South Africa;The Desmond Tutu TB Centre, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Francie van Zijl Drive, 7505, Tygerberg, South Africa;

关键词: Nutrition;    Diet;    Food;    Systematic review;    Cochrane;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s12937-017-0244-7

 received in 2016-11-08, accepted in 2017-04-02,  发布年份 2017

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

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.

【 授权许可】

CC BY   
© The Author(s). 2017