Food-based dietary guidelines in Spain: an assessment of their methodological quality

Treatments for non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic quality assessment of clinical practice guidelines

AIM

To evaluate the methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) on treatments for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, CPG developer websites, lung cancer societies, and oncology organizations to identify CPGs providing recommendations on treatments for NSCLC. The methodological quality for each CPG was determined independently by three appraisers using the AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II) instrument.

RESULTS

Twenty-two CPGs met the eligibility criteria. The median scores per AGREE II domain were: scope and purpose 90.7% (64.8-100%), stakeholder involvement 76.9% (27.8-96.3%); rigor of development 80.9% (27.1-92.4%); clarity of presentation 89.8% (50-100%); applicability 46.5% (12.5-87.5%); and editorial independence 91.7% (27.8-100%). Most of the CPGs (54.5%) were rated as "recommended with modifications" for clinical use.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the methodological quality of CPGs proving recommendations on the management of NSCLC is moderate, but there is still room for improvement in their development and implementation.

Is There a Convergence between the Food Classification Adopted by Food-Based Dietary Guidelines and Food Science and Technology?

The World Health Organization (WHO) proposed the dietary guidelines presented as the Food-based Dietary Guidelines (FBDG). The FBDG classify foods according to their origin, nature, nutrient source, food group, and processing level. Food science and technology (FST) ranks food according to its origin, perishability, nutrient source, processing, food group, and formulation. This paper aimed to compare the convergence points for food classification according to the FBDG and FST. This study was carried out in two phases. The first step was identifying the Food-Based Dietary Guidelines (FBDG). For each of the FBDG, food items were grouped as fruits, vegetables, cereals, sugars, fat and oils, legumes, foods from animals, dairy products, and others. The second step aimed to identify and describe the different food classification systems. The search was performed on PubMed®, Science Direct, and Web of Science and websites of international organizations such as the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the Codex Alimentarius. Our results show that the points of convergence between the classifications were the classification in terms of origin (animal and vegetable), nutrient sources, and food groups. However, inconsistencies were observed for the distribution of food items in each group in the 98 surveyed FBDG. As for nature, there was a convergence for in natura, minimally processed, and processed foods. However, the criteria adopted for minimally processed and processed foods described in the FBDG differ from those considered by the FST. FST also does not recognize the classification of foods concerning the level of processing.

People's Values and Preferences about Meat Consumption in View of the Potential Environmental Impacts of Meat: A Mixed-methods Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Health is not the only aspect people consider when choosing to consume meat; environmental concerns about the impact of meat (production and distribution) can influence people's meat choices.

METHODS

We conducted a mixed-methods systematic review, searched six databases from inception to June 2020, and synthesised our findings into narrative forms. We integrated the evidence from quantitative and qualitative data sets into joint displays and assessed the confidence in the evidence for each review finding following the GRADE-CERQual approach.

RESULTS

Of the 23,531 initial records, we included 70 studies: 56 quantitative, 12 qualitative, and 2 mixed-methods studies. We identified four main themes: (1) reasons for eating meat; (2) reasons for avoiding meat; (3) willingness to change meat consumption; and (4) willingness to pay more for environmentally friendly meat. The overall confidence was low for the reasons for eating and/or buying meat, for avoiding meat, and for willingness to change meat consumption, and was moderate for willingness to pay more for environmentally friendly meat.

CONCLUSIONS

Regardless of people's general beliefs about meat and its impact on the environment, most people may be unwilling to change their meat consumption. Future research should address the current limitations of the research evidence to assess whether people are willing to make a change when properly informed.

Predictors of Higher Quality of Systematic Reviews Addressing Nutrition and Cancer Prevention

Systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SR/MAs) are considered a reliable source of information in healthcare. We aimed to explore the association of several characteristics of SR/MAs addressing nutrition in cancer prevention and their quality/risk of bias (using assessments from AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS tools). The analysis included 101 SR/MAs identified in a systematic survey. Associations of each specified characteristic (e.g., information about the protocol, publication year, reported use of GRADE, or other methods for assessing overall certainty of evidence) with the number of AMSTAR-2 not met (‘No’ responses) and the number of ROBIS items met (‘Probably Yes’ or “Yes’ responses) were examined. Poisson regression was used to identify predictors of the number of ‘No’ answers (indicating lower quality) for all AMSTAR-2 items and the number of ‘Yes’ or ‘Probably Yes’ answers (indicating higher quality/lower concern for bias) for all ROBIS items. Logistic regression was used to identify variables associated with at least one domain assessed as ‘low concern for bias’ in the ROBIS tool. In multivariable analysis, SR/MAs not reporting use of any quality/risk of bias assessment instrument for primary studies were associated with a higher number of ‘No’ answers for all AMSTAR-2 items (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09–1.45), and a lower number of ‘Yes’ or ‘Probably Yes’ answers for all ROBIS items (IRR 0.76, 95% CI 0.66–0.87). Providing information about the protocol and search for unpublished studies was associated with a lower number of ‘No’ answers (IRR 0.73, 95% CI 0.56–0.97 and IRR 0.75, 95% CI 0.59–0.95, respectively) and a higher number of ‘Yes’ or ‘Probably Yes’ answers (IRR 1.43, 95% CI 1.17–1.74 and IRR 1.28, 95% CI 1.07–1.52, respectively). Not using at least one quality/risk of bias assessment tool for primary studies within an SR/MA was associated with lower odds that a study would be assessed as ‘low concern for bias’ in at least one ROBIS domain (odds ratio 0.061, 95% CI 0.007–0.527). Adherence to methodological standards in the development of SR/MAs was associated with a higher overall quality of SR/MAs addressing nutrition for cancer prevention.

Dietary Patterns, Adherence to the Food-Based Dietary Guidelines, and Ultra-Processed Consumption During the COVID-19 Lockdown in a Sample of Spanish Young Population

Purpose: The aim of this study was to explore the dietary patterns, adherence to Food-Based Dietary Guidelines, and the ultra-processed consumption during the COVID-19 lockdown among a Spanish young population aged 3-17 years. Methods: Parents/legal guardians of preschoolers, children, and adolescents aged 3-17 years were enrolled through social networks. The eating habits were assessed by a Food Propensity Questionnaire applied in the ENALIA (Encuesta Nacional de Alimentación en la población Infantil y Adolescente) Spanish survey, which aims to collect food intake information and other data about eating habits on children and adolescents (0-18 years old). Participants were dichotomized following the Food-Based Dietary Guidelines for the Spanish young population offered by the Spanish Society of Community Nutrition. The ultra-processed food score was determined following the principles established in the NOVA classification. Results: Data from 604 children and adolescents were included. An association between age group and the recommendations of snacks (p = 0.002), fruits (p = 0.010), and diaries (p < 0.001) was found. Adolescents showed a lower mean compliance with these guidelines than children (p = 0.004) and preschoolers (p < 0.001). Similarly, children reported lower Food-Based Dietary Guidelines than preschoolers (p = 0.015). Regarding ultra-processed consumption, it was also observed a higher intake in adolescents than in children (p = 0.037), as well as in preschoolers (p < 0.001). Conclusions: The associations that were found highlight the low proportion of the young population (especially adolescents) meeting the Food-Based Dietary Guidelines and the high consumption of ultra-processed foods during COVID-19 lockdown.