Suppr超能文献

学校环境中营养干预策略在超重和肥胖一级预防中的作用:系统评价和网状Meta分析

Effects of nutritional intervention strategies in the primary prevention of overweight and obesity in school settings: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

作者信息

Nury Edris, Stadelmaier Julia, Morze Jakub, Nagavci Blin, Grummich Kathrin, Schwarzer Guido, Hoffmann Georg, Angele Claudia M, Steinacker Jürgen M, Wendt Janine, Conrad Johanna, Schmid Daniela, Meerpohl Joerg J, Schwingshackl Lukas

机构信息

Institute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.

Department of General Practice and Primary Care, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

出版信息

BMJ Med. 2022 Dec 23;1(1):e000346. doi: 10.1136/bmjmed-2022-000346. eCollection 2022.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To examine the effects of different nutritional intervention strategies in the school setting on anthropometric and quality of diet outcomes by comparing and ranking outcomes in a network meta-analysis.

DESIGN

Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science, Education Resources Information Centre (ERIC), PsycInfo, CAB Abstracts, Campbell Library, Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre) BiblioMap, Australian Education Index, Joanna Briggs Institute Evidence-Based Practice (JBI EBP) database, Practice-based Evidence in Nutrition (PEN) database, ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials, and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

A systematic literature search was performed from inception to 2 May 2022. Cluster randomised controlled trials meeting these study criteria were included: generally healthy school students aged 4-18 years; intervention with ≥1 nutritional components in a school setting; and studies that assessed anthropometric measures (eg, body mass index, body fat) or measures related to the quality of diet (eg, intake of fruit and vegetables), or both. Random effects pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analyses were performed with a frequentist approach. P scores, a frequentist analogue to surface under the cumulative ranking curve, ranging from 0 to 1 (indicating worst and best ranked interventions, respectively) were calculated. Risk of bias was assessed with Cochrane's RoB 2 tool. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was used to rate the certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

51 cluster randomised controlled trials involving 75 954 participants and seven intervention nodes were included. Inconsistency could not be assessed (except for intake of fruit and vegetables) because the network meta-analyses were based mainly on star shaped networks with no direct evidence for specific pairs of nutritional interventions. Overall, little or no evidence was found to support a difference in body mass index, body weight, body fat, or waist circumference and moderate improvements in intake of fruit and vegetables with nutritional interventions in a school setting. Low to moderate certainty of evidence further suggested that multicomponent nutritional interventions likely reduced the prevalence (odds ratio 0.66, 95% confidence interval 0.55 to 0.80) and incidence (0.67, 0.47 to 0.96) of overweight compared with a control group. Based on low certainty of evidence, nutrition education and multicomponent interventions may be more effective than a control group (ie, usual practice) for increasing intake of fruit and vegetables. Multicomponent nutritional interventions were ranked the most effective for reducing body mass index (P score 0.76) and intake of fat (0.82). Nutrition education was ranked as best for body mass index z score (0.99), intake of fruit and vegetables (0.82), intake of fruit (0.92), and intake of vegetables (0.88).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest that nutritional interventions in school settings may improve anthropometric and quality of diet measures, potentially contributing to the prevention of overweight and obesity in childhood and adolescence. The findings should be interpreted with caution because the certainty of evidence was often rated as low. The results of the network meta-analysis could be used by policy makers in developing and implementing effective, evidence based nutritional intervention strategies in the school setting.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020220451.

摘要

目的

通过在网状Meta分析中对结果进行比较和排序,研究学校环境中不同营养干预策略对人体测量指标和饮食质量结果的影响。

设计

系统评价和网状Meta分析。

数据来源

PubMed、Cochrane对照试验中央注册库(CENTRAL)、科学网、教育资源信息中心(ERIC)、PsycInfo、CAB文摘库、坎贝尔图书馆、政策与实践信息及协调中心证据库(EPPI - Centre)BiblioMap、澳大利亚教育索引、乔安娜·布里格斯循证实践研究所(JBI EBP)数据库、营养循证实践(PEN)数据库、ClinicalTrials.gov、当前对照试验以及世界卫生组织国际临床试验注册平台。

选择研究的纳入标准

从数据库建立至2022年5月2日进行了系统的文献检索。纳入符合以下研究标准的整群随机对照试验:4 - 18岁的一般健康在校学生;在学校环境中进行≥1种营养成分的干预;以及评估人体测量指标(如体重指数、体脂)或与饮食质量相关的指标(如水果和蔬菜摄入量)或两者皆评估的研究。采用频率学派方法进行随机效应成对Meta分析和网状Meta分析。计算P分数,这是累积排序曲线下面积的频率学派类似物,范围从0到1(分别表示排名最差和最佳的干预措施)。使用Cochrane的RoB 2工具评估偏倚风险。采用推荐分级评估、制定和评价(GRADE)框架对证据的确定性进行评级。

结果

纳入了51项整群随机对照试验,涉及75954名参与者和7个干预节点。由于网状Meta分析主要基于星形网络,没有特定营养干预对的直接证据,因此无法评估不一致性(水果和蔬菜摄入量除外)。总体而言,几乎没有证据支持在学校环境中进行营养干预会使体重指数、体重、体脂或腰围存在差异,而水果和蔬菜摄入量有适度改善。低至中等确定性的证据进一步表明,与对照组相比,多成分营养干预可能会降低超重的患病率(比值比0.66,95%置信区间0.55至0.80)和发病率(0.67,0.47至0.96)。基于低确定性的证据,营养教育和多成分干预在增加水果和蔬菜摄入量方面可能比对照组(即常规做法)更有效。多成分营养干预在降低体重指数(P分数0.76)和脂肪摄入量(0.82)方面排名最有效。营养教育在体重指数z分数(0.99)、水果和蔬菜摄入量(0.82)、水果摄入量(0.92)和蔬菜摄入量(0.88)方面排名最佳。

结论

研究结果表明,学校环境中的营养干预可能会改善人体测量指标和饮食质量指标,可能有助于预防儿童和青少年超重和肥胖。由于证据的确定性通常被评为低,因此对这些结果的解释应谨慎。网状Meta分析的结果可供政策制定者用于制定和实施学校环境中有效、基于证据的营养干预策略。

系统评价注册

PROSPERO CRD42020220451

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/55c7/9951385/436092a2cfa5/bmjmed-2022-000346f01.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验