Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review
  • Published:

Conclusiveness of the Cochrane Reviews in Nutrition: a systematic analysis

Subjects

Abstract

Background/Objective:

To assess the conclusiveness of the Cochrane Reviews (CRs) in the field of Nutrition, we tested the hypotheses that: (1) the majority of CRs is inconclusive; (2) the majority of CRs recognizes the need for further and better studies and (3) the ability to reach a conclusion is dependent on the number of studies performed and number of patients enrolled.

Subjects/Methods:

We selected all 87 CRs in the field of Nutrition available in Cochrane library. Each CR was analyzed for the number of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) found, number of RCTs included for analysis, number of patients enrolled, the stated need for further studies and the reason(s) for it and the conclusiveness of the CR.

Results:

Fifty-six out of eighty-seven CRs (64.4%) were conclusive. The average number of available articles, the percentage of articles included, the average number of RCT’s retained in the analyses and the total cumulative number of patients enrolled in the studies retained for analysis were significantly higher in conclusive CRs than in non-conclusive ones. The majority of inconclusive CRs (70.9%) recognized the need for further studies, a percentage not significantly different from that found in conclusive ones (58.9%, P=0.26). The percentage of conclusive CRs was not affected by year of publication.

Conclusions:

The majority of CRs in Nutrition is conclusive, but most of them emphasize the need for further studies. The ability for a CR to reach a conclusion is affected by the cumulative patient sample size and number of RCT’s included in the analysis.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mandel D, Littner Y, Mimouni FB, Lubetzky R . Conclusiveness of the Cochrane Neonatal Reviews: a systematic analysis. Acta Paediatr 2006; 95: 1209–1212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C . Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997; 315: 629–634.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Sterne JA, Gavaghan D, Egger M . Publication and related bias in meta-analysis: power of statistical tests and prevalence in the literature. J Clin Epidemiol 2000; 53: 1119–1129.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Littner Y, Mimouni FB, Dollberg S, Mandel D . Negative results and impact factor: a lesson from neonatology. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2005; 159: 1036–1037.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Egger M, Zellweger-Zahner T, Schneider M, Junker C, Lengeler C, Antes G . Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German. Lancet 1997; 350: 326–329.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S Cohen.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cohen, S., Mandel, D., Mimouni, F. et al. Conclusiveness of the Cochrane Reviews in Nutrition: a systematic analysis. Eur J Clin Nutr 68, 143–145 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/ejcn.2013.252

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ejcn.2013.252

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links