Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

Systematic reviews in nutrition: standardized methodology

  • Carmina Wanden-Berghe (a1) (a2) and Javier Sanz-Valero (a3) (a4)
Abstract

The objective of this study is to establish a methodological proposal in order to carry out qualitative systematic reviews and apply these findings to a review of Omega-3 Fatty Acids with respect to health and illness. Based on a methodological proposal, a general protocol was developed to provide a sound basis for the preparation of the reviews in this journal supplement. A systematic technique was proposed in order to revise the existing scientific literature on Omega-3 Fatty Acids, with particular emphasis on aspects relating to health and illness. The aim of qualitative systematic reviews is to collate and summarise the results of the primary studies reviewed which will be carried out through a descriptive synthesis. It can be concluded that systematic reviews provide a summary of the existing primary documents on a specific scientific question. The detailed and explicit methods used lead to the identification, critical evaluation and synthesis of the scientific literature. Furthermore, both bias and random effects are reduced, resulting in more reliable data from which to draw conclusions and make recommendations to support decision-making.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Systematic reviews in nutrition: standardized methodology
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Systematic reviews in nutrition: standardized methodology
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Systematic reviews in nutrition: standardized methodology
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
Corresponding author
*Corresponding author: Carmina Wanden-Berghe, fax +34677415560, email carminaw@telefonica.net
References
Hide All
1 Airy GB (1861) On the algebraic and numerical theory of errors of observations and the combination of observations [monograph on the Internet]. Cambridge: MacMillan and co. Available at: http://www.jameslindlibrary.org/illustrating/records/on-the-algebraical-and-numerical-theory-of-errors-of-observation/title_pages (accessed 15 February 2011).
2 Glass GV (1976) Primary, secondary and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher 10, 38.
3 Pearson K (1904) Report on certain enteric fever inoculation statistics. BMJ 3, 12431246.
4 Glass GV, McGaw B & Smith ML (1981) Meta-analysis in social research [monograph on the Internet]. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Available at http://www.jameslindlibrary.org/illustrating/records/meta-analysis-in-social-research/title_pages (accessed 15 February 2011).
5 Stjernswärd J (1974) Decreased survival related to irradiation postoperatively in early operable breast cancer. Lancet 304, 12851286.
6 Stjernswärd J, Muenz LR & von Essen CF (1976) Postoperative radiotherapy and breast cancer. Lancet 307, 749.
7 Delgado Rodriguez M (2010) Revisión sistemática de estudios: Metanálisis. Barcelona: Signo Editores.
8 Rothman KJ, Greenland S & Lash TL (2008) Modern Epidemiology, 3th ed. Philadelphia, USA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
9 The Cochrane Collaboration (2011) The Cochrane Policy Manual [homepage]. Oxford, UK: The Cochrane Collaboration. Available at http://www.cochrane.org/policy-manual/welcome (accessed 15 February 2011).
10 The Joanna Briggs Institute. (2001) Introduction to Systematic Reviews. Changing Practice [serial on the Internet]. Available at http://www.joannabriggs.edu.au/pubs/best_practice.php (accessed 15 February 2011).
11 Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (2009) Systematic Reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care [monograph on the Internet]. York, UK: National Institute for Health Research, University of York. Available at http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/index_guidance.htm (accessed 16 February 2011).
12 Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) [Database on the Internet] (2011) Bethesda: National Center for Biotechnology Information NCBI, U.S. National Library of Medicine. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db = mesh (accessed 16 February 2011).
13 Health Sciences Descriptors (DeCS). [Database on the Internet] (2010) Sao Paulo: Virtual Health Library. Available at http://decs.bvs.br/I/homepagei.htm (accessed 16 February 2011).
14 Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre Module (2011) Handbook (Spanish version) [homepage]. Barcelona, Spain: Centro Cochrane Iberoamericano. Available at: http://www.cochrane.es/?q = es/handbook (accessed 23 February 2011).
15 González de Dios J, Balaguer Santamaría A. (2007) Revisiones sistemáticas y metanálisis (I): conceptos básicos. Evid Pediatr [serial on the Internet]. Available at: http://www.evidenciasenpediatria.es/DetalleArticulo/_LLP3k9qgzIh7aNQBiadwmV2uNpzhRtGoySyIrAFidII1cH_sSbFkbmyd7FSp9aUz2s8mhuZE3MdxEj-U4cn17g#articulo-completo (accessed 23 February 2011).
16 Gérvas J & Pérez Fernández M (2001) La revisión por pares en las revistas científicas. Aten Primaria 27, 432439.
17 American Medical Association (2011) JAMAevidence: Core topics in evidence-based medicine [homepage]. Available at http://jamaevidence.com/index (accessed 15 February 2011) Chicago, USA: American Medical Association & The McGraw-Hill Companies.
18 U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (2011) U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) [homepage]. Rockville, USA: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, USPSTF. Available at http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstfix.htm (accessed 19 February 2011).
19 NHS Quality Improvement Scotland (NHS QIS) (2011) Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) [homepage]. Edinburgh, UK: NHS QIS. Available at http://www.sign.ac.uk/index.html (accessed 22 February 2011).
20 Center for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM) (2011) Tools for each step of the EBM process [homepage]. Oxford, UK: CEBM, University of Oxford. Available at http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o = 1023 (accessed 22 February 2011).
21 Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT). (2010) The CONSORT Statement [homepage]. The CONSORT Group. Available at http://www.consort-statement.org/consort-statement/ (accessed 22 February 2011).
22 Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. (1996) Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 17, 112.
23 National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). (2010) Evidence Base [homepage]. Health Development Agency, NICE. Available at http://www.nice.org.uk/aboutnice/whoweare/aboutthehda/evidencebase/evidence_base.jsp (accessed 22 February 2011).
24 Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) (2003) Guidelines for Authors of CADTH Health Technology Assessment Reports [monograph on the Internet]. Ottawa, Canada: CADTH. Available at http://www.cadth.ca/index.php/en/related-links/authors-guide (accessed 22 February 2011).
25 Moher D and The PRISMA Group. Liberati A & Tetzlaff J, et al. (2009) Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) [homepage] the PRISMA Statement. Available at: http://www.prisma-statement.org/index.htm (accessed 21 August 2011).
26 Atienza Merino G, Maceira Rozas MC, Paz Valiñas L. (2008) Las revisiones sistemáticas, guías clínicas [monograph on the Internet]. A Coruña, Spain: Fisterra, atención primaria en la Red, Available at http://www.fisterra.com/guias2/fmc/rrss.asp (accessed 15 February 2011).
27 Review Manager (RevMan) [Computer program]. (2008), version 5·0. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration.
28 Systematic Reviews Collaborative Tool (SysCollab) [Computer program] Granada, Spain: University of Granada.
29 CASPe (2011) Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Español (CASPe) [homepage]. Alicante, Spain: CASPe. Available at http://www.redcaspe.org/ (accessed 23 February 2011).
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

British Journal of Nutrition
  • ISSN: 0007-1145
  • EISSN: 1475-2662
  • URL: /core/journals/british-journal-of-nutrition
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 10
Total number of PDF views: 74 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 153 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 19th October 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.