Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: The role of nutrition in public health is well established. This raises the need for reliable and up-to-date evidence and its ready accessibility for health professionals and consumers.
Objectives: The principal objectives are to evaluate whether nutrition related Cochrane Systematic Reviews (as primary or secondary intervention) contain clear guidance on nutritional aspects that may be applicable to individual patient care.
Methods: We designed a search strategy to identify nutrition relevant Cochrane Reviews in the Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2006. The abstracts were independently assessed by two individuals (MN/JVB) to identify nutrition relevant reviews applicable to a consulting room setting. All irrelevant studies were excluded and a questionnaire was completed for each review by the consumers and a nutrition specialist.
Results: A search of the Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2006 retrieved 148 nutrition relevant Cochrane reviews but 106 reviews were excluded as they lacked any nutritional aspect or were not applicable in the consulting room. In seven of the 42 included studies, nutrition could not be considered as an intervention, but dietary habits may have influenced the results of the treatment. In 18 studies, nutrition was a primary intervention but in four, the intervention was too specific to be applicable for a consulting room plain language summary and the rest of the 14 studies included nutrition as a primary intervention, a translation was applicable and stated in the form of a clear 'Consulting room plain language summary'. In two studies, nutrition was considered as a secondary intervention but there was no clear translation into a consulting room plain language summary and there was a need for a substantive nutritional amendment. The remaining 14 studies did not have nutrition as a main intervention but it was a secondary or adjuvant intervention.
Conclusions: Our study has shown that there are a limited number of nutrition related Cochrane reviews with clear guidance on nutritional aspects that may be applicable to individual patient care. This is especially true in situations were nutrition and diet advice is mainly secondary or adjuvant. Moreover, interventions which are too specific may compromise the applicability of the results and a wider overview on different nonpharmacological interventions including nutritional interventions seems more appropriate. We recommend that clear guidance needs to be developed for Cochrane reviews in order to develop nutritional guidance applicable in the consulting room for these reviews.
Objectives: The principal objectives are to evaluate whether nutrition related Cochrane Systematic Reviews (as primary or secondary intervention) contain clear guidance on nutritional aspects that may be applicable to individual patient care.
Methods: We designed a search strategy to identify nutrition relevant Cochrane Reviews in the Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2006. The abstracts were independently assessed by two individuals (MN/JVB) to identify nutrition relevant reviews applicable to a consulting room setting. All irrelevant studies were excluded and a questionnaire was completed for each review by the consumers and a nutrition specialist.
Results: A search of the Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2006 retrieved 148 nutrition relevant Cochrane reviews but 106 reviews were excluded as they lacked any nutritional aspect or were not applicable in the consulting room. In seven of the 42 included studies, nutrition could not be considered as an intervention, but dietary habits may have influenced the results of the treatment. In 18 studies, nutrition was a primary intervention but in four, the intervention was too specific to be applicable for a consulting room plain language summary and the rest of the 14 studies included nutrition as a primary intervention, a translation was applicable and stated in the form of a clear 'Consulting room plain language summary'. In two studies, nutrition was considered as a secondary intervention but there was no clear translation into a consulting room plain language summary and there was a need for a substantive nutritional amendment. The remaining 14 studies did not have nutrition as a main intervention but it was a secondary or adjuvant intervention.
Conclusions: Our study has shown that there are a limited number of nutrition related Cochrane reviews with clear guidance on nutritional aspects that may be applicable to individual patient care. This is especially true in situations were nutrition and diet advice is mainly secondary or adjuvant. Moreover, interventions which are too specific may compromise the applicability of the results and a wider overview on different nonpharmacological interventions including nutritional interventions seems more appropriate. We recommend that clear guidance needs to be developed for Cochrane reviews in order to develop nutritional guidance applicable in the consulting room for these reviews.