Variation observed in consensus judgments between pairs of reviewers when assessing the risk of bias due to missing evidence in a sample of published meta-analyses of nutrition research.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the risk of bias due to missing evidence in a sample of published meta-analyses of nutrition research using the Risk Of Bias due to Missing Evidence (ROB-ME) tool and determine inter-rater agreement in assessments. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We assembled a random sample of 42 meta-analyses of nutrition research. Eight assessors were randomly assigned to one of four pairs. Each pair assessed 21 randomly assigned meta-analyses, and each meta-analysis was assessed by two pairs. We calculated raw percentage agreement and chance corrected agreement using Gwet's Agreement Coefficient (AC) in consensus judgments between pairs. RESULTS: Across the eight signaling questions in the ROB-ME tool, raw percentage agreement ranged from 52% to 100%, and Gwet's AC ranged from 0.39 to 0.76. For the risk-of-bias judgment, the raw percentage agreement was 76% (95% confidence interval 60% to 92%) and Gwet's AC was 0.47 (95% confidence interval 0.14 to 0.80). In seven (17%) meta-analyses, either one or both pairs judged the risk of bias due to missing evidence as "low risk". CONCLUSION: Our findings indicated substantial variation in assessments in consensus judgments between pairs for the signaling questions and overall risk-of-bias judgments. More tutorials and training are needed to help researchers apply the ROB-ME tool more consistently.

Credibility at stake: only two-thirds of randomized trials of nutrition interventions are registered and lack transparency in outcome and treatment effect definitions.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate the adherence of randomized controlled trials of nutrition interventions to transparency practices informing assessments of selective reporting biases, including the availability of a trial registration entry, protocol and statistical analysis plan (SAP). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective observational study with cross-sectional design. We systematically searched for trials published from 1 July 2019, to 30 June 2020, and included a randomly selected sample of 400 studies. We searched for registry entries, protocols, and SAPs for all included studies. We extracted data to characterize the disclosure of sufficient information in the available materials to inform assessments of selective reporting biases, considering the definition of outcome domain, measure, metric, method of aggregation, time point, analysis population, methods to handle missing data and method of adjustment. RESULTS: Most trials (69%) were registered, but these often lacked sufficient specification of outcomes and intended treatment effects. Protocols and SAPs provided more details but were less often available (14% and 3%, respectively), and even then, almost all studies presented limited information to inform the assessments of risk of bias due to the selection of the reported result. CONCLUSION: Lack of full specification of outcomes and intended treatment effects hinder a full adherence of randomized controlled trials of nutrition interventions to transparency practices and may affect their credibility.

Effect of oral nutritional supplements with or without nutritional counselling on mortality, treatment tolerance and quality of life in head-and-neck cancer patients receiving (chemo)radiotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Oral nutritional supplements are widely recommended to head-and-neck cancer patients undergoing anti-cancer treatment; however, their effects on the outcomes of most importance to patients are unclear. This study aimed to systematically review the evidence of effect of oral nutritional supplements on mortality, treatment tolerance, quality of life, functional status, body weight and adverse effects. We searched PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, LILACS, Web of Science, CINAHL, two trial registry platforms, three sources of grey literature and reference lists of included studies. We assessed the risk of bias using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2), and certainty of evidence using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. We used random-effects models with Hartung-Knapp correction for the meta-analyses. We included fifteen trials, of which five were ongoing or unpublished, providing evidence in four comparisons. We found very low to low certainty evidence for the effect of oral nutritional supplements on mortality, treatment tolerance, quality of life, functional status and adverse effects. When compared with nutritional counselling alone, nutritional counselling plus oral nutritional supplements probably increased body weight slightly. We also found adverse events relating to supplements use such as nausea, vomiting and feeling of fullness. Possible increases in mortality, treatment tolerance and quality of life besides a possible decrease in functional status are worthy of further investigation. Future research could attempt to address the clinical importance of a probable increase in body weight. Possible adverse effects of the use of oral nutritional supplements should not be overlooked.