Skip to main content
. 2021 Dec 7;4(2):487–500. doi: 10.1136/bmjnph-2021-000248

Table 1.

General characteristics of systematic reviews

Number of reviews (%)
N=150
Journal
 General nutrition journal (journals with only a nutrition focus) (eg, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition) 61 (40.7%)
 Specialised nutrition journal (journals with a focus on nutrition and a specific disease area) (eg, Nutrition, Metabolism and Cardiovascular Diseases) 7 (4.7%)
 General medical journal (eg, Lancet) 28 (18.7%)
 Specialised medical journal (eg, Clinical Breast Cancer) 54 (36%)
Country of corresponding author’s affiliation
 North America 14 (9.3%)
 Europe 43 (28.7%)
 Oceania 13 (8.7%)
 Middle East 28 (18.7%)
 Asia 49 (32.7%)
 South America 3 (0.7%)
Was the review conducted to inform a particular guideline or policy decision or to fulfil the needs of a particular evidence user?
 Yes 6 (4%)
 No 144 (96%)
Funding*
 Government support 56 (37.3%)
 Institutional support 34 (22.7%)
 Private not-for-profit foundation 20 (13.3%)
 Food marketing/advocacy organisations 4 (3.3%)
 Food companies 2 (1.3%)
 No funding 32 (21.3%)
 Not reported 34 (22.7%)
Did the authors declare any conflicts of interest?
 Yes 10 (6.7%)
 No 135 (90%)
 Not reported 5 (3.3%)
Exposure(s)*
 Micronutrient 27 (18%)
 Macronutrient 24 (16%)
 Bioactive compounds 15 (10%)
 Food or beverage 60 (40%)
 Food group 21 (14.0%)
 Dietary pattern 49 (32.7%)
 Non-nutritive components of foods/beverages 25 (18.7%)
Outcome(s)*
 Cardiometabolic morbidity or mortality 26 (17.3%)
 Cancer morbidity or mortality 54 (36%)
 Diseases of the digestive system 10 (6.7%)
 All-cause mortality 9 (6%)
 Anthropometric measures 8 (5.33%)
 Surrogate outcomes 17 (11.3%)
 Other 55 (36.7%)
Eligible study designs*
 Cohort 146 (97.3%)
 Case-control 97 (64.7%)
 Cross-sectional 80 (53.3%)
 Randomised controlled trials 74 (49.3%)
Median no of primary studies (IQR) 15 (11 to 23)
Median no of participants (IQR) 208 117 (84 951 to 510 954)
Method for the synthesis of results
 Meta-analysis 115 (76.7%)
 Narrative 21 (14%)
 Tabular/graphical summary of quantitative results without meta-analysis 14 (9.3%)
Did the review assess risk of bias?
 Yes 131 (87.3%)
 No 19 (12.6%)

*Each review can be classified in more than one category.