Study sponsorship and the nutrition research agenda: analysis of randomized controlled trials included in systematic reviews of nutrition interventions to address obesity. Fabbri, A., Chartres, N., Scrinis, G., & Bero, L. A. Public Health Nutrition, 20(7):1306–1313, May, 2017. doi abstract bibtex OBJECTIVE: To categorize the research topics covered by a sample of randomized controlled trials (RCT) included in systematic reviews of nutrition interventions to address obesity; to describe their funding sources; and to explore the association between funding sources and nutrition research topics. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SUBJECTS: RCT included in Cochrane Reviews of nutrition interventions to address obesity and/or overweight. RESULTS: Two hundred and thirteen RCT from seventeen Cochrane Reviews were included. Funding source and authors' conflicts of interest were disclosed in 82·6 and 29·6 % of the studies, respectively. RCT were more likely to test an intervention to manipulate nutrients in the context of reduced energy intake (44·2 % of studies) than food-level (11·3 %) and dietary pattern-level (0·9 %) interventions. Most of the food industry-sponsored studies focused on interventions involving manipulations of specific nutrients (66·7 %). Only 33·1 % of the industry-funded studies addressed dietary behaviours compared with 66·9 % of the non-industry-funded ones (P=0·002). The level of food processing was poorly considered across all funding sources. CONCLUSIONS: The predominance of RCT examining nutrient-specific questions could limit the public health relevance of rigorous evidence available for systematic reviews and dietary guidelines.
@article{fabbri_study_2017,
title = {Study sponsorship and the nutrition research agenda: analysis of randomized controlled trials included in systematic reviews of nutrition interventions to address obesity},
volume = {20},
issn = {1475-2727},
shorttitle = {Study sponsorship and the nutrition research agenda},
doi = {10.1017/S1368980016003128},
abstract = {OBJECTIVE: To categorize the research topics covered by a sample of randomized controlled trials (RCT) included in systematic reviews of nutrition interventions to address obesity; to describe their funding sources; and to explore the association between funding sources and nutrition research topics.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional study.
SUBJECTS: RCT included in Cochrane Reviews of nutrition interventions to address obesity and/or overweight.
RESULTS: Two hundred and thirteen RCT from seventeen Cochrane Reviews were included. Funding source and authors' conflicts of interest were disclosed in 82·6 and 29·6 \% of the studies, respectively. RCT were more likely to test an intervention to manipulate nutrients in the context of reduced energy intake (44·2 \% of studies) than food-level (11·3 \%) and dietary pattern-level (0·9 \%) interventions. Most of the food industry-sponsored studies focused on interventions involving manipulations of specific nutrients (66·7 \%). Only 33·1 \% of the industry-funded studies addressed dietary behaviours compared with 66·9 \% of the non-industry-funded ones (P=0·002). The level of food processing was poorly considered across all funding sources.
CONCLUSIONS: The predominance of RCT examining nutrient-specific questions could limit the public health relevance of rigorous evidence available for systematic reviews and dietary guidelines.},
language = {eng},
number = {7},
journal = {Public Health Nutrition},
author = {Fabbri, Alice and Chartres, Nicholas and Scrinis, Gyorgy and Bero, Lisa A.},
month = may,
year = {2017},
pmid = {27989264},
keywords = {8 Ignorance and funding bias, Biais de financement, Bias, Conflict of Interest, Diet, Food Handling, Food Industry, Humans, Nutrition Assessment, Nutrition intervention, Nutritional Sciences, Obesity, Overweight, PRINTED (Fonds papier), Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Research Design, Research agenda, Sponsorship},
pages = {1306--1313},
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"iemh7LeNqTDK7Dpqm","bibbaseid":"fabbri-chartres-scrinis-bero-studysponsorshipandthenutritionresearchagendaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrialsincludedinsystematicreviewsofnutritioninterventionstoaddressobesity-2017","authorIDs":[],"author_short":["Fabbri, A.","Chartres, N.","Scrinis, G.","Bero, L. A."],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"Study sponsorship and the nutrition research agenda: analysis of randomized controlled trials included in systematic reviews of nutrition interventions to address obesity","volume":"20","issn":"1475-2727","shorttitle":"Study sponsorship and the nutrition research agenda","doi":"10.1017/S1368980016003128","abstract":"OBJECTIVE: To categorize the research topics covered by a sample of randomized controlled trials (RCT) included in systematic reviews of nutrition interventions to address obesity; to describe their funding sources; and to explore the association between funding sources and nutrition research topics. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SUBJECTS: RCT included in Cochrane Reviews of nutrition interventions to address obesity and/or overweight. RESULTS: Two hundred and thirteen RCT from seventeen Cochrane Reviews were included. Funding source and authors' conflicts of interest were disclosed in 82·6 and 29·6 % of the studies, respectively. RCT were more likely to test an intervention to manipulate nutrients in the context of reduced energy intake (44·2 % of studies) than food-level (11·3 %) and dietary pattern-level (0·9 %) interventions. Most of the food industry-sponsored studies focused on interventions involving manipulations of specific nutrients (66·7 %). Only 33·1 % of the industry-funded studies addressed dietary behaviours compared with 66·9 % of the non-industry-funded ones (P=0·002). The level of food processing was poorly considered across all funding sources. CONCLUSIONS: The predominance of RCT examining nutrient-specific questions could limit the public health relevance of rigorous evidence available for systematic reviews and dietary guidelines.","language":"eng","number":"7","journal":"Public Health Nutrition","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Fabbri"],"firstnames":["Alice"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Chartres"],"firstnames":["Nicholas"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Scrinis"],"firstnames":["Gyorgy"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Bero"],"firstnames":["Lisa","A."],"suffixes":[]}],"month":"May","year":"2017","pmid":"27989264","keywords":"8 Ignorance and funding bias, Biais de financement, Bias, Conflict of Interest, Diet, Food Handling, Food Industry, Humans, Nutrition Assessment, Nutrition intervention, Nutritional Sciences, Obesity, Overweight, PRINTED (Fonds papier), Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Research Design, Research agenda, Sponsorship","pages":"1306–1313","bibtex":"@article{fabbri_study_2017,\n\ttitle = {Study sponsorship and the nutrition research agenda: analysis of randomized controlled trials included in systematic reviews of nutrition interventions to address obesity},\n\tvolume = {20},\n\tissn = {1475-2727},\n\tshorttitle = {Study sponsorship and the nutrition research agenda},\n\tdoi = {10.1017/S1368980016003128},\n\tabstract = {OBJECTIVE: To categorize the research topics covered by a sample of randomized controlled trials (RCT) included in systematic reviews of nutrition interventions to address obesity; to describe their funding sources; and to explore the association between funding sources and nutrition research topics.\nDESIGN: Cross-sectional study.\nSUBJECTS: RCT included in Cochrane Reviews of nutrition interventions to address obesity and/or overweight.\nRESULTS: Two hundred and thirteen RCT from seventeen Cochrane Reviews were included. Funding source and authors' conflicts of interest were disclosed in 82·6 and 29·6 \\% of the studies, respectively. RCT were more likely to test an intervention to manipulate nutrients in the context of reduced energy intake (44·2 \\% of studies) than food-level (11·3 \\%) and dietary pattern-level (0·9 \\%) interventions. Most of the food industry-sponsored studies focused on interventions involving manipulations of specific nutrients (66·7 \\%). Only 33·1 \\% of the industry-funded studies addressed dietary behaviours compared with 66·9 \\% of the non-industry-funded ones (P=0·002). The level of food processing was poorly considered across all funding sources.\nCONCLUSIONS: The predominance of RCT examining nutrient-specific questions could limit the public health relevance of rigorous evidence available for systematic reviews and dietary guidelines.},\n\tlanguage = {eng},\n\tnumber = {7},\n\tjournal = {Public Health Nutrition},\n\tauthor = {Fabbri, Alice and Chartres, Nicholas and Scrinis, Gyorgy and Bero, Lisa A.},\n\tmonth = may,\n\tyear = {2017},\n\tpmid = {27989264},\n\tkeywords = {8 Ignorance and funding bias, Biais de financement, Bias, Conflict of Interest, Diet, Food Handling, Food Industry, Humans, Nutrition Assessment, Nutrition intervention, Nutritional Sciences, Obesity, Overweight, PRINTED (Fonds papier), Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Research Design, Research agenda, Sponsorship},\n\tpages = {1306--1313},\n}\n\n","author_short":["Fabbri, A.","Chartres, N.","Scrinis, G.","Bero, L. A."],"key":"fabbri_study_2017","id":"fabbri_study_2017","bibbaseid":"fabbri-chartres-scrinis-bero-studysponsorshipandthenutritionresearchagendaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrialsincludedinsystematicreviewsofnutritioninterventionstoaddressobesity-2017","role":"author","urls":{},"keyword":["8 Ignorance and funding bias","Biais de financement","Bias","Conflict of Interest","Diet","Food Handling","Food Industry","Humans","Nutrition Assessment","Nutrition intervention","Nutritional Sciences","Obesity","Overweight","PRINTED (Fonds papier)","Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic","Research Design","Research agenda","Sponsorship"],"metadata":{"authorlinks":{}},"downloads":0},"bibtype":"article","biburl":"http://bibbase.org/zotero-group/science_et_ignorance/1340424","creationDate":"2019-05-09T14:50:13.403Z","downloads":0,"keywords":["8 ignorance and funding bias","biais de financement","bias","conflict of interest","diet","food handling","food industry","humans","nutrition assessment","nutrition intervention","nutritional sciences","obesity","overweight","printed (fonds papier)","randomized controlled trials as topic","research design","research agenda","sponsorship"],"search_terms":["study","sponsorship","nutrition","research","agenda","analysis","randomized","controlled","trials","included","systematic","reviews","nutrition","interventions","address","obesity","fabbri","chartres","scrinis","bero"],"title":"Study sponsorship and the nutrition research agenda: analysis of randomized controlled trials included in systematic reviews of nutrition interventions to address obesity","year":2017,"dataSources":["zX4acseCDM6D58AW7","NTvuMntpta5z9CAbT"]}