PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
Background: There is a significant lack of consistency used to determine the scientific validity of nutrigenetic research. The aims of this study were to examine existing frameworks used for determining scientific validity in nutrition and/or genetics and to determine which framework would be most appropriate to evaluate scientific validity in nutrigenetics in the future. Methods: A systematic review (PROSPERO registration: CRD42021261948) was conducted up until July 2021 using Medline, Embase, and Web of Science, with articles screened in duplicate. Gray literature searches were also conducted (June-July 2021), and reference lists of two relevant review articles were screened. Included articles provided the complete methods for a framework that has been used to evaluate scientific validity in nutrition and/or genetics. Articles were excluded if they provided a framework for evaluating health services/systems more broadly. Citing articles of the included articles were then screened in Google Scholar to determine if the framework had been used in nutrition or genetics, or both; frameworks that had not were excluded. Summary tables were piloted in duplicate and revised accordingly prior to synthesizing all included articles. Frameworks were critically appraised for their applicability to nutrigenetic scientific validity assessment using a predetermined categorization matrix, which included key factors deemed important by an expert panel for assessing scientific validity in nutrigenetics. Results: Upon screening 3,931 articles, a total of 49 articles representing 41 total frameworks, were included in the final analysis (19 used in genetics, 9 used in nutrition, and 13 used in both). Factors deemed important for evaluating nutrigenetic evidence related to study design and quality, generalizability, directness, consistency, precision, confounding, effect size, biological plausibility, publication/funding bias, allele and nutrient dose-response, and summary levels of evidence. Frameworks varied in the components of their scientific validity assessment, with most assessing study quality. Consideration of biological plausibility was more common in frameworks used in genetics. Dose-response effects were rarely considered. Two included frameworks incorporated all but one predetermined key factor important for nutrigenetic scientific validity assessment. Discussion/Conclusions: A single existing framework was highlighted as optimal for the rigorous evaluation of scientific validity in nutritional genomics, and minor modifications are proposed to strengthen it further. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=261948, PROSPERO [CRD42021261948].
摘要：
背景：用于确定营养遗传学研究的科学有效性的一致性明显缺乏。这项研究的目的是检查用于确定营养和/或遗传学科学有效性的现有框架，并确定哪个框架将来最适合评估营养遗传学的科学有效性。方法：使用Medline进行系统评价（PROSPERO注册：CRD42021261948），直到2021年7月，Embase,和WebofScience,文章一式两份筛选。还进行了灰色文献检索（2021年6月至7月），并筛选了两篇相关评论文章的参考文献清单。包括的文章提供了用于评估营养和/或遗传学科学有效性的框架的完整方法。如果文章提供了更广泛地评估卫生服务/系统的框架，则将其排除在外。然后在GoogleScholar中筛选所包含文章的引用文章，以确定该框架是否已用于营养或遗传学，或两者兼而有之；未被排除的框架。汇总表一式两份，并在综合所有纳入的条款之前进行了相应的修订。使用预定的分类矩阵对框架在营养遗传学科学有效性评估中的适用性进行了严格评估，其中包括专家小组认为对评估营养遗传学科学有效性很重要的关键因素。结果：在筛选3,931篇文章后，共49篇文章，代表41个框架，包括在最终分析中(19种用于遗传学，9用于营养，和13用于两者)。被认为对评估与研究设计和质量相关的营养遗传学证据很重要的因素，概括性，直接性，一致性,精度,混杂，效果大小,生物学上的合理性，出版/资助偏见，等位基因和营养剂量反应，和证据的汇总水平。框架的科学有效性评估的组成部分各不相同，大多数评估研究质量。在遗传学中使用的框架中，对生物学合理性的考虑更为普遍。很少考虑剂量反应效应。两个包含的框架包含了除一个预先确定的关键因素外的所有因素，这些因素对于营养遗传学科学有效性评估至关重要。讨论/结论：一个单一的现有框架被强调为营养基因组学科学有效性的严格评估的最佳，并建议稍作修改以进一步加强。系统审查注册：https://www。crd.约克。AC.uk/prospro/display_record.php?RecordID=261948,PROSPERO[CRD42021261948]。
