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

被引:3
|
作者
Zajac, Joanna F. [1 ]
Storman, Dawid [1 ]
Swierz, Mateusz J. [1 ]
Koperny, Magdalena [2 ]
Weglarz, Paulina [1 ]
Staskiewicz, Wojciech [3 ]
Gorecka, Magdalena [3 ]
Skuza, Anna [3 ]
Wach, Adam [3 ]
Kaluzinska, Klaudia [3 ]
Bochenek-Cibor, Justyna [4 ]
Johnston, Bradley C. [5 ,6 ,7 ]
Bala, Malgorzata M. [1 ]
机构
[1] Jagiellonian Univ, Med Coll, Dept Hyg & Dietet, Chair Epidemiol & Prevent Med, Kopernika 7 St, PL-31034 Krakow, Poland
[2] Jagiellonian Univ, Med Coll, Dept Epidemiol, Chair Epidemiol & Prevent Med, Krakow, Poland
[3] Jagiellonian Univ, Med Coll, Students Sci Grp Systemat Reviews, Krakow, Poland
[4] St Lukas Hosp, Dept Radiat Oncol, Tarnow, Poland
[5] Texas A&M Univ, Dept Nutr, College Stn, TX USA
[6] Texas A&M Univ, Dept Epidemiol & Biostat, College Stn, TX USA
[7] McMaster Univ, Dept Hlth Res Methods Evidence & Impact, Hamilton, ON, Canada
关键词
cancer; nutrition; prevention; quality; risk of bias; METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY; REPORTING CHARACTERISTICS; HEALTH-CARE; METAANALYSES; JOURNALS; EPIDEMIOLOGY; GUIDELINES; OUTCOMES; AMSTAR; TOOL;
D O I
10.1093/nutrit/nuab093
中图分类号
R15 [营养卫生、食品卫生]; TS201 [基础科学];
学科分类号
100403 ;
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页码:1558 / 1567
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Predictors of Higher Quality of Systematic Reviews Addressing Nutrition and Cancer Prevention
    Storman, Dawid
    Koperny, Magdalena
    Zajac, Joanna
    Polak, Maciej
    Weglarz, Paulina
    Bochenek-Cibor, Justyna
    Swierz, Mateusz J.
    Staskiewicz, Wojciech
    Gorecka, Magdalena
    Skuza, Anna
    Wach, Adam A.
    Kaluzinska, Klaudia
    Bala, Malgorzata M.
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND PUBLIC HEALTH, 2022, 19 (01)
  • [2] The Quality of Nutrition and Cancer Reviews: A Systematic Assessment
    Weed, Douglas L.
    [J]. CRITICAL REVIEWS IN FOOD SCIENCE AND NUTRITION, 2013, 53 (03) : 276 - 286
  • [3] Assessing the methodological quality and risk of bias of systematic reviews: primer for authors of overviews of systematic reviews
    Lunny, Carole
    Kanji, Salmaan
    Thabet, Pierre
    Haidich, Anna-Bettina
    Bougioukas, Konstantinos, I
    Pieper, Dawid
    [J]. BMJ MEDICINE, 2024, 3 (01):
  • [4] In reply: Bias risk in systematic reviews
    Schneider, B. S. Allison
    Mullinax, B. A. Samuel
    Oliveto, Alison H.
    Acheson, Ashley
    Wilson, Michael P.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 2021, 45 : 600 - 601
  • [5] Risk of bias reporting in Cochrane systematic reviews
    Hopp, Lisa
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NURSING PRACTICE, 2015, 21 (05) : 683 - 686
  • [6] Methodological quality of systematic reviews addressing femoroacetabular impingement
    Marcin Kowalczuk
    John Adamich
    Nicole Simunovic
    Forough Farrokhyar
    Olufemi R. Ayeni
    [J]. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, 2015, 23 : 2583 - 2589
  • [7] Methodological quality of systematic reviews addressing femoroacetabular impingement
    Kowalczuk, Marcin
    Adamich, John
    Simunovic, Nicole
    Farrokhyar, Forough
    Ayeni, Olufemi R.
    [J]. KNEE SURGERY SPORTS TRAUMATOLOGY ARTHROSCOPY, 2015, 23 (09) : 2583 - 2589
  • [8] Bias in systematic reviews?
    Millett, Declan
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS, 2011, 38 (03) : 158 - 160
  • [9] Quality and risk of bias appraisals of systematic reviews are inconsistent across reviewers and centers
    Gates, Michelle
    Gates, Allison
    Duarte, Goncalo
    Cary, Maria
    Becker, Monika
    Prediger, Barbara
    Vandermeer, Ben
    Fernandes, Ricardo M.
    Pieper, Dawid
    Hartling, Lisa
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2020, 125 : 9 - 15
  • [10] Methodological quality and risk of bias in orthodontic systematic reviews using AMSTAR and ROBIS
    Hooper, Emily J.
    Pandis, Nikolaos
    Cobourne, Martyn T.
    Seehra, Jadbinder
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS, 2021, 43 (05) : 544 - 550