• Bmc Med · Jan 2025

    Meta Analysis

    Evaluating agreement between individual nutrition randomised controlled trials and cohort studies - a meta-epidemiological study.

    • Julia Stadelmaier, Gina Bantle, Lea Gorenflo, Eva Kiesswetter, Adriani Nikolakopoulou, and Lukas Schwingshackl.
    • Institute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. julia.stadelmaier@uniklinik-freiburg.de.
    • Bmc Med. 2025 Jan 21; 23 (1): 3636.

    BackgroundIn nutrition research, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies provide complementary evidence. This meta-epidemiological study aims to evaluate the agreement of effect estimates from individual nutrition RCTs and cohort studies investigating a highly similar research question and to investigate determinants of disagreement.MethodsMEDLINE, Epistemonikos, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from January 2010 to September 2021. We matched individual RCTs to cohort studies based on population, intervention/exposure, comparator, and outcome (PI/ECO) characteristics. Two reviewers independently extracted study characteristics and effect estimates and rated the risk of bias using RoB2 and ROBINS-E. Agreement of matched RCTs/cohort studies was analysed by pooling ratio of risk ratios (RRR) and difference of (standardised) mean differences (DSMD).ResultsWe included 64 RCT/cohort study pairs with 4,136,837 participants. Regarding PI/ECO similarity, 20.3% pairs were "more or less identical", 71.9% "similar but not identical" and 7.8% "broadly similar". Most RCTs were classified as "low risk of bias" (26.6%) or with "some concerns" (65.6%); cohort studies were mostly rated with "some concerns" (46.6%) or "high risk of bias" (47.9%), driven by inadequate control of important confounding factors. Effect estimates across RCTs and cohort studies were in high agreement (RRR 1.00 (95% CI 0.91-1.10, n = 54); and DSMD - 0.26 (95% CI - 0.87-0.35, n = 7)). In meta-regression analyses exploring determinants of disagreements, risk-of-bias judgements tend to have had more influence on the effect estimate than "PI/ECO similarity" degree.ConclusionsEffect estimates of nutrition RCTs and cohort studies were generally similar. Careful consideration and evaluation of PI/ECO characteristics and risk of bias is crucial for a trustworthy utilisation of evidence from RCTs and cohort studies.© 2025. The Author(s).

      Pubmed     Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…