Assessments of risk of bias in systematic reviews of observational nutritional epidemiologic studies are often not appropriate or comprehensive: a methodological study
Zeraatkar D, Kohut A, Bhasin A, Morassut R, Churchill I, Gupta A, Lawson D, Miroshnychenko A, Sirotich E, Aryal K, Azab M, Beyene J, de Souza R. Assessments of risk of bias in systematic reviews of observational nutritional epidemiologic studies are often not appropriate or comprehensive: a methodological study. BMJ Nutrition Prevention & Health 2021, 4: e000248. PMID: 35028518, PMCID: PMC8718856, DOI: 10.1136/bmjnph-2021-000248.Peer-Reviewed Original ResearchCharacteristics and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational nutritional epidemiology: a cross-sectional study
Zeraatkar D, Bhasin A, Morassut R, Churchill I, Gupta A, Lawson D, Miroshnychenko A, Sirotich E, Aryal K, Mikhail D, Khan T, Ha V, Sievenpiper J, Hanna S, Beyene J, de Souza R. Characteristics and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational nutritional epidemiology: a cross-sectional study. American Journal Of Clinical Nutrition 2021, 113: 1578-1592. PMID: 33740039, PMCID: PMC8243916, DOI: 10.1093/ajcn/nqab002.Peer-Reviewed Original ResearchConceptsCertainty of evidenceSystematic reviewNutritional epidemiology studiesEpidemiology studiesDose-response associationPoor methodological qualityCross-sectional studyRigorous systematic reviewOne-quarterCochrane DatabaseNonrandomized studyCancer morbidityDietary recommendationsMethodological qualityNutritional exposuresNutritional epidemiologyReplicable search strategySuboptimal practicesMeta-analytic modelOne-thirdRandom sampleMost reviewsReviewMethodological evaluationNutrition