Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

Nutrition topics included in systematic reviews conducted by three organizations.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Study variables.

*Publication years were selected based on decades prior to reporting guidelines (<1900 and 1900–1999), decade of implementing publication guidelines (2000–2009), and after implementation of publication guidelines (2010–2015). AHRQ, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; RCT, randomized controlled trial.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

Mapping critical appraisal items to risk of bias domains.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

Distribution of sample of critical appraisal records.

*Critical appraisal records for research articles included in systematic reviews in each system. A single article may have critical appraisal records in more than one AHRQ report or records within more than one system.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Table 1.

Characteristics of food and nutrition research used in systematic reviews.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Fig 5.

Research design types by source of funding.

CT, controlled trial; RCT, randomized controlled trial.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Table 2.

Summary of significant relationships between overall quality and ROB domain ratings by research typea.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Table 3.

Final models for predicting ROB Being met in studies with interventional designs by funder and research type and design: separate models for ROB domains.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Table 4.

Final models for predicting ROB being met in studies with observational designs by funder and research type and design: separate models for ROB domains.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Fig 6.

Significant relationships between risk of bias* and funder, research design, and year by research type.

*Arrows indicate statistically significant differences from the reference category (p < .0005, Bonferroni correction applied). Downward arrows indicate a lower risk of bias and an upward arrow represents a higher risk of bias.

More »

Fig 6 Expand