Quality of reviews on sugar-sweetened beverages and health outcomes: A systematic review

44Citations
Citations of this article
131Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: Medical and public health decisions are informed by reviews, which makes the quality of reviews an important scientific concern. Objective: We systematically assessed the quality of published reviews on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) and health, which is a controversial topic that is important to public health. Design: We performed a search of PubMed and Cochrane databases and a hand search of reference lists. Studies that were selected were published reviews and meta-analyses (June 2001 to June 2011) of epidemiologic studies of the relation between SSBs and obesity, type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome, and coronary heart disease. A standardized data-abstraction form was used. Review quality was assessed by using the validated instrument AMSTAR (assessment of multiple systematic reviews), which is a one-page tool with 11 questions. Results: Seventeen reviews met our inclusion and exclusion criteria: obesity or weight (16 reviews), diabetes (3 reviews), metabolic syndrome (3 reviews), and coronary heart disease (2 reviews). Authors frequently used a strictly narrative review (7 of 17 reviews). Only 6 of 17 reviews reported quantitative data in a table format. Overall, reviews of SSBs and health outcomes received moderately low-quality scores by the AMSTAR [mean: 4.4 points; median: 4 points; range: 1-8.5 points (out of a possible score of 11 points)]. AMSTAR scores were not related to the conclusions of authors (8 reviews reported an association with a mean AMSTAR score of 4.1 points; 9 reviews with equivocal conclusions scored 4.7 points; P value = 0.84). Less than one-third of published reviews reported a comprehensive literature search, listed included and excluded studies, or used duplicate study selection and data abstraction. Conclusion: The comprehensive reporting of epidemiologic evidence and use of systematic methodologies to interpret evidence were underused in published reviews on SSBs and health. © 2011 American Society for Nutrition.

Figures

References Powered by Scopus

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement

22730Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration

5248Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Development of AMSTAR: A measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews

3437Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Consumption of sugar sweetened beverages, artificially sweetened beverages, and fruit juice and incidence of type 2 diabetes: Systematic review, meta-analysis, and estimation of population attributable fraction

802Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Financial Conflicts of Interest and Reporting Bias Regarding the Association between Sugar-Sweetened Beverages and Weight Gain: A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews

248Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Systematic review adherence to methodological or reporting quality

213Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Weed, D. L., Althuis, M. D., & Mink, P. J. (2011, November 1). Quality of reviews on sugar-sweetened beverages and health outcomes: A systematic review. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.111.015875

Readers over time

‘12‘13‘14‘15‘16‘17‘18‘19‘20‘21‘22‘2307142128

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 45

56%

Researcher 21

26%

Professor / Associate Prof. 9

11%

Lecturer / Post doc 5

6%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 33

46%

Nursing and Health Professions 20

28%

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10

14%

Social Sciences 8

11%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0