19 research outputs found
Delphi survey on the most promising areas and methods to improve systematic reviews' production and updating
BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews (SRs) are invaluable evidence syntheses, widely used in biomedicine and other scientific areas. Tremendous resources are being spent on the production and updating of SRs. There is a continuous need to automatize the process and use the workforce and resources to make it faster and more efficient. METHODS: Information gathered by previous EVBRES research was used to construct a questionnaire for round 1 which was partly quantitative, partly qualitative. Fifty five experienced SR authors were invited to participate in a Delphi study (DS) designed to identify the most promising areas and methods to improve the efficient production and updating of SRs. Topic questions focused on which areas of SRs are most time/effort/resource intensive and should be prioritized in further research. Data were analysed using NVivo 12 plus, Microsoft Excel 2013 and SPSS. Thematic analysis findings were used on the topics on which agreement was not reached in round 1 in order to prepare the questionnaire for round 2. RESULTS: Sixty percent (33/55) of the invited participants completed round 1; 44% (24/55) completed round 2. Participants reported average of 13.3 years of experience in conducting SRs (SD 6.8). More than two thirds of the respondents agreed/strongly agreed the following topics should be prioritized: extracting data, literature searching, screening abstracts, obtaining and screening full texts, updating SRs, finding previous SRs, translating non-English studies, synthesizing data, project management, writing the protocol, constructing the search strategy and critically appraising. Participants have not considered following areas as priority: snowballing, GRADE-ing, writing SR, deduplication, formulating SR question, performing meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Data extraction was prioritized by the majority of participants as an area that needs more research/methods development. Quality of available language translating tools has dramatically increased over the years (Google translate, DeepL). The promising new tool for snowballing emerged (Citation Chaser). Automation cannot substitute human judgement where complex decisions are needed (GRADE-ing). TRIAL REGISTRATION: Study protocol was registered at https://osf.io/bp2hu/
Suplementación con magnesio y control metabólico en diabetes. Revisión sistemática de revisiones sistemáticas y metaanálisis
VIII Congreso Iberoamericano de Nutrición. ¿Nutrición basada en la videncia o en la evidencia
Aplicaciones móviles para la pérdida de peso: Revisión sistemática de ensayos clínicos controlados
VIII Congreso Iberoamericano de Nutrición. ¿Nutrición basada en la videncia o en la evidencia
Delphi survey on the most promising areas and methods to improve systematic reviews' production and updating
Background: Systematic reviews (SRs) are invaluable evidence syntheses, widely used in biomedicine and other
scientific areas. Tremendous resources are being spent on the production and updating of SRs. There is a continuous
need to automatize the process and use the workforce and resources to make it faster and more efficient.Methods: Information gathered by previous EVBRES research was used to construct a questionnaire for round 1
which was partly quantitative, partly qualitative. Fifty five experienced SR authors were invited to participate in a Del‑
phi study (DS) designed to identify the most promising areas and methods to improve the efficient production and
updating of SRs. Topic questions focused on which areas of SRs are most time/effort/resource intensive and should
be prioritized in further research. Data were analysed using NVivo 12 plus, Microsoft Excel 2013 and SPSS. Thematic
analysis findings were used on the topics on which agreement was not reached in round 1 in order to prepare the
questionnaire for round 2.Results: Sixty percent (33/55) of the invited participants completed round 1; 44% (24/55) completed round 2. Participants reported average of 13.3 years of experience in conducting SRs (SD 6.8). More than two thirds of the respondents agreed/strongly agreed the following topics should be prioritized: extracting data, literature searching, screen‑
ing abstracts, obtaining and screening full texts, updating SRs, finding previous SRs, translating non-English studies,
synthesizing data, project management, writing the protocol, constructing the search strategy and critically appraising. Participants have not considered following areas as priority: snowballing, GRADE-ing, writing SR, deduplication,
formulating SR question, performing meta-analysis.Conclusions: Data extraction was prioritized by the majority of participants as an area that needs more research/
methods development. Quality of available language translating tools has dramatically increased over the years
(Google translate, DeepL). The promising new tool for snowballing emerged (Citation Chaser). Automation cannot
substitute human judgement where complex decisions are needed (GRADE-ing).
Trial registration Study protocol was registered at https://osf.io/bp2hu/peer-reviewe
Toma de decisiones compartida e informada por las pruebas: la esencia de las recomendaciones nutricionales
VIII Congreso Iberoamericano de Nutrición. ¿Nutrición basada en la videncia o en la evidencia
Students 4 best RED-NuBE : una comunidad de aprendizaje de nutrición basada en la evidencia fundamentada en el trabajo colaborativo en red y de apoyo entre pares
II Congreso de Alimentación, Nutrición y Dietética. Avances en Nutrición y Dietética Clínica: Prevención, Tratamiento y Gestión - Rol del Dietista-Nutricionist
Students 4 best RED-NuBE : una comunidad de aprendizaje de nutrición basada en la evidencia fundamentada en el trabajo colaborativo en red y de apoyo entre pares
II Congreso de Alimentación, Nutrición y Dietética. Avances en Nutrición y Dietética Clínica: Prevención, Tratamiento y Gestión - Rol del Dietista-Nutricionist
Resource use during systematic review production varies widely : a scoping review
Objective: We aimed to map the resource use during systematic review (SR) production and reasons why steps of the SR production are resource intensive to discover where the largest gain in improving efficiency might be possible.Study design and setting: We conducted a scoping review. An information specialist searched multiple databases (e.g., Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus) and implemented citation-based and grey literature searching. We employed dual and independent screenings of records at the title/abstract and full-text levels and data extraction.Results: We included 34 studies. Thirty-two reported on the resource use-mostly time; four described reasons why steps of the review process are resource intensive. Study selection, data extraction, and critical appraisal seem to be very resource intensive, while protocol development, literature search, or study retrieval take less time. Project management and administration required a large proportion of SR production time. Lack of experience, domain knowledge, use of collaborative and SR-tailored software, and good communication and management can be reasons why SR steps are resource intensive.Conclusion: Resource use during SR production varies widely. Areas with the largest resource use are administration and project management, study selection, data extraction, and critical appraisal of studies.peer-reviewe
Establecimiento del tamaño de raciones de consumo de frutas y hortalizas para su uso en guías alimentarias en el entorno español: propuesta del Comité Científico de la Asociación 5 al día
Introduction: Food servings are standard amounts of food stuffs or drinks to help dietetic advice to promote and preserve health. The aim is to establish the serving size of fruits and vegetables (FH) to be used in food based dietary guidelines (FBDG). Material and Methods: Methodology of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) was adapted to establish serving sizes for FBDG, along of the followed by the food exchange system. Data was collected from the FH portion sizes reported in nutritional surveys and common sizes available in the Spanish market, and they were adjusted to an easily recognisable quantities of food with equivalence on key nutrients: the compliance with public health goals for FH consumption was evaluated. Results: Portion sizes typically reported in Spanish nutrition surveys are scarce and not homogeneous, and no data published in scientific journals on portion sizes were available. The Spanish FBDG, in spite of showing a range of serving size for FH, do not assure that they are interchangeable nor specify the method to obtein them.The serving of vegetables was 139,44g (DS:+/- 21.98, CV:0.16), 137,68g (DS:+/- 49,61, CV:0,36) for fruits and 28.00g (DS:+/- 7,53, CV:0.27) for dried fruits. Conclusions: With the established servings, the recommendation of consuming "at least 5 servings of FH a day" would allow reaching the Public Health goals for FH established in 600g (net weight)/person/day. It is recommended that the Spanish Agency for Consumers, Food Safety and Nutrition (AECOSAN) uses this methodology to establish serving sizes for the rest of food groups that make up the FBDG for the Spanish population.Introducción: Las raciones de consumo son cantidades estándar de alimentos o bebidas sugeri-das para asesorar sobre la cantidad de alimento a consumir para preservar un estado de salud adecuado. El objetivo principal de este trabajo es establecer los tamaños de ración de consumo de frutas y hortalizas (FH) para uso en guías alimentarias.Material y Métodos: Se adaptó la metodología de la United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) para el establecimiento de los tamaños de ración de consumo para guías, y la del Sistema de Intercambios. Se recopilaron datos de porción reportados en encuestas y calibres comunes en el mercado, se ajustó a cantidades de alimento fácilmente reconocibles y con equivalencia de nutrientes clave y se evaluó el grado de cumplimiento de los objetivos de salud pública para el consumo de FH. Resultados: Los tamaños de porción típicamente reportados en encuestas españolas son escasos y poco homogéneos, y no se encontraron datos publicados en revistas científicas sobre los cali-bres. Las guías alimentarias españolas, a pesar de mostrar un rango de tamaño de ración para FH no aseguran que sean intercambiables ni especifican el método para llegar a las mismas. La ración de hortalizas obtenida ha sido de 139,44g (DS:±21,98; CV:0,16), de 137,68g (DS:±49,61; CV:0,36) para frutas y 28,00g (DS:±7,53; CV:0,27) para frutas desecadas. . Conclusiones: Con las raciones establecidas, el mensaje “consume al menos 5 raciones entre FH al día” permitiría alcanzar los objetivo de Salud Pública para FH establecidos en 600g (peso neto)/persona/día. Se recomienda a la Agencia Española de Consumo, Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutrición (AECOSAN) que use esta misma metodología para el establecimiento de raciones en el resto de grupos de alimentos que configuran la Guía Dietética Basada en Alimentos para la población española