Independent researcher, Nutriz, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Winclove Probiotics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Adv Nutr. 2018 Sep 1;9(5):561-571. doi: 10.1093/advances/nmy046.
Studies on the relation between health and nutrition are often inconclusive. There are concerns about the validity of many research findings, and methods that can deliver high-quality evidence-such as the randomized controlled trial (RCT) method-have been embraced by nutritional researchers. Unfortunately, many nutritional RCTs also yield ambiguous results. It has been argued that RCTs are ill-suited for certain settings, including nutritional research. In this perspective, we investigate whether there are fundamental limitations of the RCT method in nutritional research. To this end, and to limit the scope, we use probiotic studies as an example. We use an epistemological approach and evaluate the presuppositions that underlie the RCT method. Three general presuppositions are identified and discussed. We evaluate whether these presuppositions can be considered true in probiotic RCTs, which appears not always to be the case. This perspective concludes by exploring several alternative study methods that may be considered for future probiotic or nutritional intervention trials.
关于健康与营养之间关系的研究往往没有定论。人们对许多研究结果的有效性表示担忧,而能够提供高质量证据的方法,如随机对照试验(RCT)方法,已经被营养研究人员所接受。不幸的是,许多营养 RCT 也得出了模棱两可的结果。有人认为,RCT 不适合某些特定环境,包括营养研究。在这种观点下,我们探讨了 RCT 方法在营养研究中是否存在根本限制。为此,为了限制范围,我们以益生菌研究为例。我们使用认识论方法来评估 RCT 方法所依据的假设。确定并讨论了三个一般假设。我们评估了这些假设在益生菌 RCT 中是否可以被认为是正确的,而在某些情况下似乎并非如此。本文最后探讨了几种可能被考虑用于未来益生菌或营养干预试验的替代研究方法。