The Nordic Nutrition Recommendations 2022 – structure and rationale of qualified systematic reviews

  • Erik Kristoffer Arnesen Department of Nutrition, University of Oslo, Norway
  • Jacob Juel Christensen Department of Nutrition, University of Oslo, and Norwegian National Advisory Unit on Familial Hypercholesterolemia, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
  • Rikke Andersen National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark (DTU), Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark
  • Hanna Eneroth The Swedish Food Agency, Uppsala, Sweden
  • Maijaliisa Erkkola Department of Food and Nutrition, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
  • Anne Høyer The Norwegian Directorate of Health, Oslo, Norway
  • Eva Warensjö Lemming The Swedish Food Agency, Uppsala, Sweden
  • Helle Margrete Meltzer Department of Environmental Health, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway
  • Þórhallur Ingi Þórhallsson School of Health Sciences, University of Iceland, Reykjavík, Iceland
  • Inga Þórsdóttir School of Health Sciences, University of Iceland, Reykjavík, Iceland
  • Ursula Schwab Department of Medicine, Endocrinology and Clinical Nutrition, Kuopio University Hospital, and Institute of Public Health and Clinical Nutrition, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio Campus, Kuopio, Finland
  • Ellen Trolle National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark (DTU), Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark
  • Rune Blomhoff Department of Nutrition, University of Oslo; The Norwegian Directorate of Health, Oslo, and Division of Cancer Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
Keywords: Dietary reference values, systematic reviews, national food and health authorities, Nordic countries, Baltics, evidence-based nutrition, nutrient recommendations, causal relationships, food-based dietary guidelines

Abstract

Background: Qualified systematic reviews (SRs) will form the main basis for evaluating causal effects of nutrients or food groups on health outcomes in the sixth edition of Nordic Nutrition Recommendations to be published in 2022 (NNR2022).

Objective: To describe rationale and structure of SRs used in NNR2022. Design: The SR methodologies of the previous edition of NNR were used as a starting point. Methodologies of recent SRs commissioned by leading national food and health authorities or international food and health organizations were examined and scrutinized. Methodologies for developing SRs were agreed by the NNR2022 Committee in a consensus-driven process.

Results: Qualified SRs will be developed by a cross-disciplinary group of experts and reported according to the requirements of the EQUATOR network. A number of additional requirements must also be fulfilled, including 1) a clearly stated set of objectives and research questions with pre-defined eligibility criteria for the studies, 2) an explicit, reproducible methodology, 3) a systematic search that attempts to identify all studies that would meet the eligibility criteria, 4) an assessment of the validity of the findings of the included studies through an assessment of ‘risk of bias’ of the studies, 5) a systematic presentation and synthesis of the characteristics and findings of the included studies, and 6) a grading of the overall evidence. The complete definition and requirements of a qualified SR are described.

Discussion: Most SRs published in scientific journals do not fulfill all criteria of the qualified SRs in the NNR2022 project. This article discusses the structure and rationale for requirements of qualified SRs in NNR2022. National food and health authorities have only recently begun to use qualified SRs as a basis for nutrition recommendations.

Conclusion: Qualified SRs will be used to inform dietary reference values (DRVs) and food-based dietary guidelines (FBDGs) in the NNR2022 project.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References


  1. Christensen JJ, Arnesen EK, Andersen R, Eneroth H, Erkkola M, Høyer A, et al. The Nordic Nutrition Recommendations 2022 – principles and methodologies. Food Nutr Res 2020. doi: 10.29219/fnr.v64.4402

  2. Arnesen EK, Christensen JJ, Andersen R, Eneroth H, Erkkola M, Høyer A, et al. The Nordic Nutrition Recommendations 2022 – handbook for qualified systematic reviews. Food Nutr Res 2020.

  3. Ioannidis JP. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 2005; 2(8): e124 doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

  4. Lichtenstein AH, Yetley EA, Lau J. Application of systematic review methodology to the field of nutrition: nutritional research series, Vol 1. AHRQ Technical Reviews. Rockville, MD: AHRQ; 2009.

  5. Yetley EA, MacFarlane AJ, Greene-Finestone LS, Garza C, Ard JD, Atkinson SA, et al. Options for basing Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs) on chronic disease endpoints: report from a joint US-/Canadian-sponsored working group. Am J Clin Nutr 2017; 105(1): 249S–85S. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.116.139097

  6. Nordic Council of Ministers. Nordic nutrition recommendations 2012: integrating nutrition and physical activity. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Minsters; 2014.

  7. Chung M, Balk EM, Ip S, Lee J, Terasawa T, Raman G, et al. Systematic review to support the development of nutrient reference intake values: challenges and solutions. Am J Clin Nutr 2010; 92(2): 273–6. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.2009.29092

  8. AGREE Next Steps Consortium. The Agree II Instrument [Internet]. 2017. Available from: http://www.agreetrust.org. [cited 28 August 2019].

  9. National Nutrition Council. Food-based dietary guidelines for public health promotion and prevention of chronic diseases – methodology and scientific evidence [Kostråd for å fremme folkehelsen og forebygge kroniske sykdommer]. Oslo, Norway: Directorate of Health; 2011.

  10. 10. DTU Fødevareinstituttet. Evidence-base for the Danish guidelines for diet and physical activity [Evidensgrundlaget for danske råd om kost og fysisk aktivitet]. Søborg, Denmark: Fødevareinstituttet; 2013.
  11. Kromhout D, Spaaij CJ, de Goede J, Weggemans RM. The 2015 Dutch food-based dietary guidelines. Eur J Clin Nutr 2016; 70(8): 869–78. doi: 10.1038/ejcn.2016.52

  12. Blake P, Durao S, Naude CE, Bero L. An analysis of methods used to synthesize evidence and grade recommendations in food-based dietary guidelines. Nutr Rev 2018; 76(4): 290–300. doi: 10.1093/nutrit/nux074

  13. Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ 2017; 358: j4008 doi: 10.1136/bmj.j4008

  14. Institute Of Medicine. Finding what works in health care: standards for systematic reviews. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2011.

  15. U.S. Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee. Scientific report of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee: advisory report to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Agriculture. Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture, United States Department of Health and Human Services; 2015.

  16. Schünemann H, Brozek J, Guyatt G, Oxman AGRADE handbook for grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. The GRADE Working Group 2013.

  17. AHRQ. Methods guide for effectiveness and comparative effectiveness reviews. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2014.

  18. WHO. WHO handbook for guideline development. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2012.

  19. European Food Safety Authority. Application of systematic review methodology to food and feed safety assessments to support decision making. EFSA J 2010; 8(6): 1637 doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1637

  20. Brannon PM, Taylor CL, Coates PM. Use and applications of systematic reviews in public health nutrition. Annu Rev Nutr 2014; 34: 401–19. doi: 10.1146/annurev-nutr-080508-141240

  21. Satija A, Yu E, Willett WC, Hu FB. Understanding nutritional epidemiology and its role in policy. Adv Nutr 2015; 6(1): 5–18. doi: 10.3945/an.114.007492

  22. Lachat C, Hawwash D, Ocke MC, Berg C, Forsum E, Hornell A, et al. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology-nutritional epidemiology (STROBE-nut): an extension of the STROBE statement. PLoS Med 2016; 13(6): e1002036 doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002036

  23. Balk EM, Horsley TA, Newberry SJ, Lichtenstein AH, Yetley EA, Schachter HM, et al. A collaborative effort to apply the evidence-based review process to the field of nutrition: challenges, benefits, and lessons learned. Am J Clin Nutr 2007; 85(6): 1448–56. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/85.6.1448

  24. Willett WC. Nutritional epidemiology. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013.

  25. World Cancer Research Fund, American Institute for Cancer Research. Continuous update project report. Judging the evidence. London: World Cancer Research Fund; 2018.

  26. Page MJ, Shamseer L, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Sampson M, Tricco AC, et al. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of biomedical research: a cross-sectional study. PLoS Med 2016; 13(5): e1002028 doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002028

  27. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. Redesigning the process for establishing the dietary guidelines for Americans. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2017.

  28. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. Global harmonization of methodological approaches to nutrient intake recommendations: proceedings of a workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2018.

  29. Dekkers OM, Vandenbroucke JP, Cevallos M, Renehan AG, Altman DG, Egger M. COSMOS-E: Guidance on conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies of etiology. PLoS Med 2019; 16(2): e1002742 doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002742

  30. Fogelholm M, Anderssen S, Gunnarsdottir I, Lahti-Koski M. Dietary macronutrients and food consumption as determinants of long-term weight change in adult populations: a systematic literature review. Food Nutr Res 2012; 56 doi: 10.3402/fnr.v56i0.19103

  31. Helfand M, Balshem H. AHRQ series paper 2: principles for developing guidance: AHRQ and the effective health-care program. J Clin Epidemiol 2010; 63(5): 484–90. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.05.005

  32. Reeves BC, Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Wells GA.Higgins JPT, Green S Including non-randomized studies. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.

  33. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009; 6(7): e1000097 doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097

  34. Higgins JPT, Deeks JJ. Selecting studies and collecting data. In Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.

  35. Horton J, Vandermeer B, Hartling L, Tjosvold L, Klassen TP, Buscemi N. Systematic review data extraction: cross-sectional study showed that experience did not increase accuracy. J Clin Epidemiol 2010; 63(3): 289–98. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.04.007

  36. Viswanathan M, Patnode CD, Berkman ND, Bass EB, Chang S, Hartling L, et al. Recommendations for assessing the risk of bias in systematic reviews of health-care interventions. J Clin Epidemiol 2018; 97: 26–34. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.12.004

  37. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JA. Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.

  38. Sterne JA, Savovic J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2019; 366: l4898 doi: 10.1136/bmj.l4898

  39. Sterne JA, Hernan MA, Reeves BC, Savovic J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 2016; 355: i4919

  40. Page MJ, Higgins JP, Clayton G, Sterne JA, Hrobjartsson A, Savovic J. Empirical evidence of study design biases in randomized trials: systematic review of meta-epidemiological studies. PLoS One 2016; 11(7): e0159267 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0159267

  41. Myers EF, Parrott JS, Splett P, Chung M, Handu D. Using risk of bias domains to identify opportunities for improvement in food- and nutrition-related research: an evaluation of research type and design, year of publication, and source of funding. PLoS One 2018; 13(7): e0197425 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0197425

  42. Wang Z, Taylor K, Allman-Farinelli M, Armstrong B, Askie L, Ghersi D, et al. A systematic review: tools for assessing methodological quality of human observational studies [Draft]: Canberra: NHMRC; 2019.

  43. Herbison P, Hay-Smith J, Gillespie WJ. Adjustment of meta-analyses on the basis of quality scores should be abandoned. J Clin Epidemiol 2006; 59(12): 1249–56. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.008

  44. Whiting P, Wolff R, Mallett S, Simera I, Savovic J. A proposed framework for developing quality assessment tools. Syst Rev 2017; 6(1): 204 doi: 10.1186/s13643-017-0604-6

  45. Juni P, Witschi A, Bloch R, Egger M. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA 1999; 282(11): 1054–60. doi: 10.1001/jama.282.11.1054

  46. Nutrition Evidence Systematic Review. Risk of Bias for Nutrition Observational Studies (RoB-NObs) Tool 2019. Available from: https://nesr.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2019-07/RiskOfBiasForNutritionObservationalStudies-RoB-NObs.pdf [cited 06 February 2020].

  47. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. Guiding principles for developing dietary reference intakes based on chronic disease. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2017.

  48. Barnard ND, Willett WC, Ding EL. The misuse of meta-analysis in nutrition research. JAMA 2017; 318(15): 1435–6. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.12083

  49. Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Altman DG Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In Higgins JPT, Altman DG Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.

  50. Boutron I, Page MJ, Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Lundh A, Hrobjartsson A. Considering bias and conflicts of interest among the included studies. 2019. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.0 (updated July 2019) [Internet]. Available from: www.training.cochrane.org/handbook [cited 2019 Oct 17].

  51. Berkman ND, Lohr KN, Ansari MT, Balk EM, Kane R, McDonagh M, et al. Grading the strength of a body of evidence when assessing health care interventions: an EPC update. J Clin Epidemiol 2015; 68(11): 1312–24. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.023

  52. West S, King V, Carey TS, Lohr KN, McKoy N, Sutton SF, et al. Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Summ). 2002; (47): 1–11.

  53. Bai A, Shukla VK, Bak G, Wells G. Quality assessment tools project report. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2012.

  54. Schwingshackl L, Knuppel S, Schwedhelm C, Hoffmann G, Missbach B, Stelmach-Mardas M, et al. Perspective: NutriGrade: a scoring system to assess and judge the meta-evidence of randomized controlled trials and cohort studies in nutrition research. Adv Nutr 2016; 7(6): 994–1004. doi: 10.3945/an.116.013052

  55. Satija A, Stampfer MJ, Rimm EB, Willett W, Hu FB. Perspective: are large, simple trials the solution for nutrition research? Adv Nutr 2018; 9(4): 378–87. doi: 10.1093/advances/nmy030

Published
2020-06-18
How to Cite
Arnesen, E. K., Juel Christensen, J., Andersen, R., Eneroth, H., Erkkola, M., Høyer, A., Warensjö Lemming, E., Meltzer, H. M., Þórhallsson, Þórhallur I., Þórsdóttir, I., Schwab, U., Trolle, E., & Blomhoff, R. (2020). The Nordic Nutrition Recommendations 2022 – structure and rationale of qualified systematic reviews. Food & Nutrition Research, 64. https://doi.org/10.29219/fnr.v64.4403
Section
Review Articles

Most read articles by the same author(s)