Funded in part by General Mills, General Mills Bell Institute of Health, Nutrition and Food Safety
Evaluating Whole Grain Intervention Study Designs and Reporting Practices Using Evidence Mapping Methodology
Sawicki CM, Livingston KA, Ross AB, Jacques PF, Koecher K, McKeown NM
Nutrients · 13 citations
Review labels
Neutral facts our review recorded about how this study was done. They describe method, never whether we like the result.
How it was studied
- Design
- Systematic review (classified by our AI screen)
- Studied in
- People
- Main outcome
- Health markers and function
- Intake measured by
- Not stated
Who paid for it
- Funding
- Industry funded
- Company
- General Mills
- Company
- General Mills Bell Institute of Health, Nutrition and Food Safety
Based on 2 listed funder(s).
Publication
- Published
- 2018-08-09 · Nutrients · vol. 10 · issue 8 · p. 1052
- Publisher
- Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
- Cited
- 17 citations · more than 83% of similar papers · 1.7× the field average
- References
- 57 works
- Access
- Open access (journal) · CC-BY
- Research areas
- Food composition and properties · Nutritional Studies and Diet · Nutrition, Genetics, and Disease
- Keywords
- Observational study, Whole grains, Medicine, Psychological intervention, Clinical trial, MEDLINE, Intervention (counseling), Refined grains, Randomized controlled trial, Internal medicine, Food science
- MeSH
- humans, treatment outcome, diet therapy, endpoint determination, patient compliance, nutritive value, research design, time factors, clinical trials as topic, evidence-based practice, recommended dietary allowances, portion size, whole grains, diet, healthy
6 authors
From US, SE
- Caleigh M SawickiTufts University; Jean Mayer Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging
- Kara A. LivingstonTufts University; Jean Mayer Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging
- Alastair B. RossChalmers University of Technology
- Paul F. JacquesTufts University; Jean Mayer Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging
- Katie J. KoecherGeneral Mills (United States)
- Nicola Mary McKeown · correspondingTufts University; Jean Mayer Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging
Abstract
Consumption of whole grains have been associated with reduced risk of chronic diseases in many observational studies; yet, results of intervention studies are mixed. We aimed to use evidence mapping to capture the methodological and reporting variability in whole grain intervention studies that may contribute to this inconsistency. We conducted a reproducible search in OVID Medline for whole grain human intervention studies (published 1946 to February 2018). After screening based on a priori criteria, we identified 202 publications describing a total of 213 unique trials. Over half (55%) were acute trials, lasting ≤1 day, 30% were moderate duration studies (up to 6 weeks) and 15% were of longer duration (more than 6 weeks). The majority of acute trials (75%) examined measures of glycaemia and/or insulinemia, while most of the longer trials included measures of cardiometabolic health (71%), appetite/satiety (57%) and weight/adiposity (56%). Among the moderate and long duration trials, there was a wide range of how whole grains were described but only 10 publications referenced an established definition. Only 55% of trials reported the actual amount of whole grains (in grams or servings), while 36% reported the amount of food/product and 9% did not report a dose at all. Of the interventions that provided a mixture of whole grains, less than half (46%) reported the distribution of the different grain types. Reporting of subject compliance also varied and only 22% used independent biomarkers of whole grain intake. This evidence map highlights the need to standardize both study protocols and reporting practices to support effective synthesis of study results and provide a stronger foundation to better inform nutrition scientists and public health policy.
Abstract via Europe PMC. Copyright remains with the authors or publisher (CC BY).
Community trust
Loading…
How much do you trust this study's findings?
Comments
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inSomething wrong here?
Flag this study if its information, labels or funding look wrong. An editor reviews every flag.
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inEducational information about published research. Not medical advice, and not a recommendation to start or stop anything.