Article type
Abstract
Background: A dramatic shift in the global food system is occurring with the rapid growth of ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) consumption, which poses potentially serious health risks. Systematic review (SR) method has been used to summarize the association between UPF consumption and multiple health outcomes; however, a suboptimal-quality SR may mislead the decision-making in clinical practices and health policies.
Objective: A methodological review was conducted to identify the areas that can be improved regarding the risk of bias and reporting quality of relevant SRs.
Methods: Systematic searches to collect SRs with meta-analyses of UPFs were performed using 4 databases from their inception to April 14, 2023. The risk of bias and reporting quality were evaluated using Risk of Bias in Systematic Review (ROBIS) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020, respectively. The key characteristics of the included SRs were summarized descriptively. Excel 2019 and R 4.2.3 were used to analyze the data and draw graphs.
Results: Finally, 16 relevant SRs written in English and published between 2020 and 2023 in 12 academic journals were included. Only 1 SR was rated as low risk of bias, and the others were rated as higher risk of bias mainly because the risk of bias in the original studies was not explicitly addressed when synthesizing the evidence (Figure 1). The reporting was required to be advanced significantly, involving amendments of registration and protocol, data and analytic code statement, and lists of excluded studies with justifications.
Conclusions: The reviews’ results could improve the quality, strengthen future relevant SRs' robustness, and further underpin the evidence base for supporting clinical decisions and health policies.
Funding statement: This work was supported by the Major Program of the National Science Found of China “Research on the Theoretical System, International Experience and Chinese Path of Evidence-based Social Science” [Grant number:19ZDA142].
Objective: A methodological review was conducted to identify the areas that can be improved regarding the risk of bias and reporting quality of relevant SRs.
Methods: Systematic searches to collect SRs with meta-analyses of UPFs were performed using 4 databases from their inception to April 14, 2023. The risk of bias and reporting quality were evaluated using Risk of Bias in Systematic Review (ROBIS) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020, respectively. The key characteristics of the included SRs were summarized descriptively. Excel 2019 and R 4.2.3 were used to analyze the data and draw graphs.
Results: Finally, 16 relevant SRs written in English and published between 2020 and 2023 in 12 academic journals were included. Only 1 SR was rated as low risk of bias, and the others were rated as higher risk of bias mainly because the risk of bias in the original studies was not explicitly addressed when synthesizing the evidence (Figure 1). The reporting was required to be advanced significantly, involving amendments of registration and protocol, data and analytic code statement, and lists of excluded studies with justifications.
Conclusions: The reviews’ results could improve the quality, strengthen future relevant SRs' robustness, and further underpin the evidence base for supporting clinical decisions and health policies.
Funding statement: This work was supported by the Major Program of the National Science Found of China “Research on the Theoretical System, International Experience and Chinese Path of Evidence-based Social Science” [Grant number:19ZDA142].