Quality of reviews on sugar-sweetened beverages and health outcomes: a systematic review  

Oleh:

Weed, Douglas L. ; Althuis, Michelle D ; Mink, Pamela J.

Jenis: Article from Journal - ilmiah internasional
Dalam koleksi: The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition vol. 94 no. 05 (Nov. 2011), page 1340-1347 .
Topik: PUBLIC HEALTH; Nutritional Epidemiology; Type 2 Diabetes

Ketersediaan

Perpustakaan FK Nomor Panggil: A07.K.2011.02 Non-tandon: 1 (dapat dipinjam: 0) Tandon: tidak ada

Lihat Detail Induk

Isi artikel

Background: Medical and public health decisions are informed by reviews, which makes the quality of reviews an important scientific concern. Objective: We systematically assessed the quality of published reviews on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) and health, which is a controversial topic that is important to public health. Design: We performed a search of PubMed and Cochrane databases and a hand search of reference lists. Studies that were selected were published reviews and meta-analyses (June 2001 to June 2011) of epidemiologic studies of the relation between SSBs and obesity, type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome, and coronary heart disease. A standardized data-abstraction form was used. Review quality was assessed by using the validated instrument AMSTAR (assessment of multiple systematic reviews), which is a one-page tool with 11 questions. Results: Seventeen reviews met our inclusion and exclusion criteria: obesity or weight (16 reviews), diabetes (3 reviews), metabolic syndrome (3 reviews), and coronary heart disease (2 reviews). Authors frequently used a strictly narrative review (7 of 17 reviews). Only 6 of 17 reviews reported quantitative data in a table format. Overall, reviews of SSBs and health outcomes received moderately low–quality scores by the AMSTAR [mean: 4.4 points; median: 4 points; range: 1–8.5 points (out of a possible score of 11 points)]. AMSTAR scores were not related to the conclusions of authors (8 reviews reported an association with a mean AMSTAR score of 4.1 points; 9 reviews with equivocal conclusions scored 4.7 points; P value = 0.84). Less than one-third of published reviews reported a comprehensive literature search, listed included and excluded studies, or used duplicate study selection and data abstraction. Conclusion: The comprehensive reporting of epidemiologic evidence and use of systematic methodologies to interpret evidence were underused in published reviews on SSBs and health.

Opini Anda

Klik untuk menuliskan opini Anda tentang koleksi ini!

Kembali