ASN Meetings
Am J Clin Nutr 89: 1099-1113, 2009. First published February 25, 2009; doi:10.3945/ajcn.2008.26821
 American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, doi:10.3945/ajcn.2008.26821
Vol. 89, No. 4, 1099-1113, April 2009
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Supplemental data
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
89/4/1099    most recent
ajcn.2008.26821v1
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Chung, M.
Right arrow Articles by Lau, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Chung, M.
Right arrow Articles by Lau, J.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Chung, M.
Right arrow Articles by Lau, J.
© 2009 American Society for Clinical Nutrition

ORIGINAL RESEARCH COMMUNICATION

Reporting of systematic reviews of micronutrients and health: a critical appraisal

Mei Chung1,2,3,4, Ethan M Balk1,2,3,4, Stanley Ip1,2,3,4, Gowri Raman1,2,3,4, Winifred W Yu1,2,3,4, Thomas A Trikalinos1,2,3,4, Alice H Lichtenstein1,2,3,4, Elizabeth A Yetley1,2,3,4 and Joseph Lau1,2,3,4

1 From Tufts Evidence-based Practice Center, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA (MC, EMB, SI, GR, TAT, AHL, and JL); the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University, Boston, MA (MC, WWY, AHL, and JL); the Cardiovascular Nutrition Laboratory, Jean Mayer US Department of Agriculture Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging, Tufts University, Boston, MA (AHL and WWY); and the Office of Dietary Supplements, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, MD (EAY).

2 The authors of this article are responsible for its content. Statements in the manuscript should not be construed as an endorsement by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality or the US Department of Health and Human Services.

3 Supported by contract no. 290-02-0022 from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the US Department of Health and Human Services, and the National Institutes of Health.

4 Reprints not available. Address correspondence to J Lau, Tufts Evidence-based Practice Center, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Box 63, 800 Washington Street, Boston, MA 02111. E-mail: jlau1{at}tuftsmedicalcenter.org.

Background: The quality of nutrition-related systematic reviews (SRs) is an unstudied but important factor affecting their usefulness.

Objectives: The objectives were to evaluate the reporting quality of published SRs and to identify areas of improvement.

Design: Descriptive and exploratory analyses of the reporting quality (7 nutrition items and 28 SR reporting items) of all English-language SRs published through July 2007 linking micronutrients and health outcomes in humans were conducted. Factors that may be associated with reporting quality were also evaluated.

Results: We identified 141 eligible SRs of 21 micronutrients. Ninety SRs that included only interventional studies met a higher proportion of our reporting criteria (median: 62%; interquartile range: 51%, 72%) than did 31 SRs with only observational studies (median: 53%; interquartile range: 47%, 60%) or 20 SRs with both study designs (median: 47%; interquartile range: 39%, 52%) (P < 0.001). SRs published after consensus reporting standards (since 2003) met a higher proportion of the reporting criteria than did earlier SRs (median: 59% compared with 50%; P = 0.01); however, the reporting of nutrition variables remained unchanged (median: 38% compared with 33%; P = 0.7). The least-reported nutrition criteria were baseline nutrient exposures (28%) and effects of measurement errors from nutrition exposures (24%). Only 58 SRs (41%) used quality scales or checklists to assess the methodologic quality of the primary studies included.

Conclusions: The reporting quality of SRs has improved 3 y after publication of SR reporting standards, but the reporting of nutrition variables has not. Improved adherence to consensus methods and reporting standards should improve the utility of nutrition SRs.