Title-plus-abstract versus title-only first-level screening approach: a case study using a systematic review of dietary patterns and sarcopenia risk to compare screening performance.

BACKGROUND: Conducting a systematic review is a time- and resource-intensive multi-step process. Enhancing efficiency without sacrificing accuracy and rigor during the screening phase of a systematic review is of interest among the scientific community. METHODS: This case study compares the screening performance of a title-only (Ti/O) screening approach to the more conventional title-plus-abstract (Ti + Ab) screening approach. Both Ti/O and Ti + Ab screening approaches were performed simultaneously during first-level screening of a systematic review investigating the relationship between dietary patterns and risk factors and incidence of sarcopenia. The qualitative and quantitative performance of each screening approach was compared against the final results of studies included in the systematic review, published elsewhere, which used the standard Ti + Ab approach. A statistical analysis was conducted, and contingency tables were used to compare each screening approach in terms of false inclusions and false exclusions and subsequent sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and positive predictive power. RESULTS: Thirty-eight citations were included in the final analysis, published elsewhere. The current case study found that the Ti/O first-level screening approach correctly identified 22 citations and falsely excluded 16 citations, most often due to titles lacking a clear indicator of study design or outcomes relevant to the systematic review eligibility criteria. The Ti + Ab approach correctly identified 36 citations and falsely excluded 2 citations due to limited population and intervention descriptions in the abstract. Our analysis revealed that the performance of the Ti + Ab first-level screening was statistically different compared to the average performance of both approaches (Chi-squared: 5.21, p value 0.0225) while the Ti/O approach was not (chi-squared: 2.92, p value 0.0874). The predictive power of the first-level screening was 14.3% and 25.5% for the Ti/O and Ti + Ab approaches, respectively. In terms of sensitivity, 57.9% of studies were correctly identified at the first-level screening stage using the Ti/O approach versus 94.7% by the Ti + Ab approach. CONCLUSIONS: In the current case study comparing two screening approaches, the Ti + Ab screening approach captured more relevant studies compared to the Ti/O approach by including a higher number of accurately eligible citations. Ti/O screening may increase the likelihood of missing evidence leading to evidence selection bias. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO Protocol Number: CRD42020172655.

Reply to Consavage Stanley, K.; Kraak, V.I. Comment on "Lau et al. Trends in Beef Intake in the United States: Analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2001-2018. Nutrients 2023, 15, 2475".

We thank the authors [...].

Trends in Beef Intake in the United States: Analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2001-2018.

Evidence-based dietary advice regarding meats (including beef), requires accurate assessment of beef and other red meat intakes across life stages. Beef intake is subject to misclassification due to the use of broad categories such as "red and processed meat". In the current study, intake trends for total beef (i.e., any beef type) and specific beef types (fresh lean, ground, processed) among Americans participating in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2001-2018 (n = 74,461) were characterized and usual intake was assessed using NHANES 2011-2018 (n = 30,679). The usual intake amounts of beef were compared to those of relevant protein food subgroups modeled in the Healthy U.S.-Style Dietary Pattern (HDP) reported in the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA). Total per capita beef consumption declined an average of 12 g (p < 0.0001) for ages 2-18 years and 5.7 g (p = 0.0004) for ages 19-59 years per 2-yr NHANES cycle, over the 18-year timeframe, while remaining unchanged for Americans aged 60+ years. On a per capita basis, Americans aged 2 years and older consumed 42.2 g (1.5 ounces) of total beef per day. Fresh lean beef per capita consumption was 33.4 g (1.2 ounces) per day. Per capita intake was similar across all age groups and below the daily HDP modeled amount of 3.7 ounce equivalents for the "Meats, Poultry, Eggs" (MPE) subgroup, while approximately 75% of beef consumers' intakes of total beef was within HDP modeling. Evidence from intake trends suggests beef is not overconsumed by the majority of Americans but rather within the amounts for MPE and red meat modeled in the HDP of the DGA at the 2000-calorie level.

Dietary Patterns and the Risk of Sarcopenia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The purpose of this systematic review is to examine the relationship between dietary patterns and sarcopenia using a protocol developed for use by the 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, and to conduct a meta-analysis to summarize the evidence. Multiple electronic databases were searched for studies investigating sarcopenia risk factors or risk of sarcopenia and dietary patterns. Eligible studies were 1) peer-reviewed controlled trials or observational trials, 2) involving adult or older-adult human subjects who were healthy and/or at risk for chronic disease, 3) comparing the effect of consumption or adherence to dietary patterns (measured as an index/score, factor or cluster analysis; reduced rank regression; or a macronutrient distribution), and 4) reported on measures of skeletal muscle mass, muscle strength, muscle performance, and/or risk of sarcopenia. Thirty-eight publications met all inclusion criteria for qualitative synthesis. Thirteen observational studies met inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. Higher adherence to a healthy dietary pattern was associated with a decreased risk of gait speed reduction (OR = 0.58; 95% CI: 0.18, 0.97). The association between healthy dietary pattern adherence and other intermediate markers or risk of sarcopenia was not statistically significant. The majority of individual studies were judged as "serious" risk of bias and analysis of the collective evidence base was suggestive of publication bias. Studies suggest a significant association between healthy dietary patterns and maintenance of gait speed with age, an intermediate marker of sarcopenia risk, but the evidence base is limited by serious risk of bias, within and between studies. Further research is needed to understand the association between healthy dietary patterns and risk of sarcopenia.