Indonesian
Albanian
Arabic
Armenian
Azerbaijani
Belarusian
Bengali
Bosnian
Catalan
Czech
Danish
Deutsch
Dutch
English
Estonian
Finnish
Français
Greek
Haitian Creole
Hebrew
Hindi
Hungarian
Icelandic
Indonesian
Irish
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Latvian
Lithuanian
Macedonian
Mongolian
Norwegian
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Romanian
Russian
Serbian
Slovak
Slovenian
Spanish
Swahili
Swedish
Turkish
Ukrainian
Vietnamese
Български
中文(简体)
中文(繁體)
Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2018

The quality of evidence on nutrition intervention published in Chinese journals: an assessment of meta-analyses on vitamin interventions.

Hanya pengguna terdaftar yang dapat menerjemahkan artikel
Masuk daftar
Tautan disimpan ke clipboard
Yanhua Ning
Juxia Zhang
Yun Li

Kata kunci

Abstrak

OBJECTIVE

The quality of meta-analyses (MAs) on nutrition intervention in mainland China remains uninvestigated. To assess the quality of the evidence regarding nutrition intervention in mainland China, we used vitamin intervention as an example to assess the overall methodological and reporting qualities of MAs on nutrition interventions published in Chinese journals.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study on MAs of vitamin interventions was performed. Four Chinese databases were searched from inception through September 2016 for all MAs of vitamin intervention. A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statements were used to assess methodological and reporting qualities, respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 43 MAs of vitamin interventions were included, but none of the studies had been updated. These reviews mainly focused on the effects of interventions involving vitamin D, B vitamins and vitamin E, and the most studied condition was "Endocrine, Nutritional and Metabolic diseases," such as diabetes, obesity, and nutritional rickets. The median AMSTAR score was 6 (0-7), and median PRISMA score was 18 (3-24). No study provided an 'a priori' design, a list of excluded studies, or a statement on conflict of interest, and less than 50.0% of included MAs stated the publication status and performed an adequate structure summary.

CONCLUSIONS

The quality of the included MAs was disappointing regarding some items, and some lower quality reviews should be updated. Future MAs should improve on reporting conflicts of interest, harm, and publication bias.

Bergabunglah dengan
halaman facebook kami

Database tanaman obat terlengkap yang didukung oleh sains

  • Bekerja dalam 55 bahasa
  • Pengobatan herbal didukung oleh sains
  • Pengenalan herbal melalui gambar
  • Peta GPS interaktif - beri tag herba di lokasi (segera hadir)
  • Baca publikasi ilmiah yang terkait dengan pencarian Anda
  • Cari tanaman obat berdasarkan efeknya
  • Atur minat Anda dan ikuti perkembangan berita, uji klinis, dan paten

Ketikkan gejala atau penyakit dan baca tentang jamu yang mungkin membantu, ketik jamu dan lihat penyakit dan gejala yang digunakan untuk melawannya.
* Semua informasi didasarkan pada penelitian ilmiah yang dipublikasikan

Google Play badgeApp Store badge