Page Matthew J, Bero Lisa, Kroeger Cynthia M, Dai Zhaoli, McDonald Sally, Forbes Andrew, McKenzie Joanne E
School of Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia.
Charles Perkins Centre, School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, 2006, Australia.
F1000Res. 2019 Oct 16;8:1760. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.20726.2. eCollection 2019.
Dietary guidelines should be informed by systematic reviews (SRs) of the available scientific evidence. However, if the SRs that underpin dietary guidelines are flawed in their design, conduct or reporting, the recommendations contained therein may be misleading or harmful. To date there has been little empirical investigation of bias due to selective inclusion of results, and bias due to missing results, in SRs of food/diet-outcome relationships. To explore in SRs with meta-analyses of the association between food/diet and health-related outcomes: (i) whether systematic reviewers selectively included study effect estimates in meta-analyses when multiple effect estimates were available; (ii) what impact selective inclusion of study effect estimates may have on meta-analytic effects, and; (iii) the risk of bias due to missing results (publication bias and selective non-reporting bias) in meta-analyses. We will systematically search for SRs with meta-analysis of the association between food/diet and health-related outcomes in a generally healthy population, published between January 2018 and June 2019. We will randomly sort titles and abstracts and screen them until we identify 50 eligible SRs. The first reported meta-analysis of a binary or continuous outcome in each SR (the 'index meta-analysis') will be evaluated. We will extract from study reports all study effect estimates that were eligible for inclusion in the index meta-analyses (e.g. from multiple instruments and time points) and will quantify and test for evidence of selective inclusion of results. We will also assess the risk of bias due to missing results in the index meta-analyses using a new tool (ROB-ME). Ethics approval is not required because information will only be extracted from published studies. Dissemination of the results will be through peer-reviewed publications and presentations at conferences. We will make all data collected from this study publicly available via the Open Science Framework.
膳食指南应以现有科学证据的系统评价(SRs)为依据。然而,如果作为膳食指南基础的系统评价在设计、实施或报告方面存在缺陷,其中包含的建议可能会产生误导或有害影响。迄今为止,对于食物/饮食与健康结果关系的系统评价中,因选择性纳入结果而导致的偏倚以及因结果缺失而导致的偏倚,几乎没有实证研究。为了在对食物/饮食与健康相关结果关联进行荟萃分析的系统评价中探究:(i)当有多个效应估计值时,系统评价者在荟萃分析中是否选择性纳入研究效应估计值;(ii)选择性纳入研究效应估计值可能对荟萃分析效应产生何种影响;以及(iii)荟萃分析中因结果缺失(发表偏倚和选择性未报告偏倚)导致的偏倚风险。我们将系统检索2018年1月至2019年6月期间发表的、对一般健康人群中食物/饮食与健康相关结果关联进行荟萃分析的系统评价。我们将对标题和摘要进行随机排序并筛选,直至识别出50项合格的系统评价。将对每项系统评价中首次报告的二元或连续结局的荟萃分析(“索引荟萃分析”)进行评估。我们将从研究报告中提取所有符合纳入索引荟萃分析条件的研究效应估计值(例如来自多个工具和时间点的),并对结果选择性纳入的证据进行量化和检验。我们还将使用一种新工具(ROB-ME)评估索引荟萃分析中因结果缺失导致的偏倚风险。由于仅从已发表研究中提取信息,因此无需伦理批准。研究结果将通过同行评审出版物和在会议上的报告进行传播。我们将通过开放科学框架使本研究收集的所有数据公开可用。