NUQUEST-NUtrition QUality Evaluation Strengthening Tools: Development of Tools for the Evaluation of Risk of Bias in Nutrition Studies

Overview

Journal Am J Clin Nutr

Publisher Elsevier

Specialty Nutritional Sciences

Date 2021 Oct 4

PMID 34605544

Citations 5

Authors

Shannon E Kelly

Linda S Greene-Finestone

Elizabeth A Yetley

Karima Benkhedda

Stephen P J Brooks

George A Wells

Amanda J MacFarlane

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Dietary exposure assessments are a critical issue in evaluating human nutrition studies; however, nutrition-specific criteria are not consistently included in existing bias assessment tools.

Objectives: Our objective was to develop a set of risk of bias (RoB) tools that integrated nutrition-specific criteria into validated generic assessment tools to address RoB issues, including those specific to dietary exposure assessment.

Methods: The Nutrition QUality Evaluation Strengthening Tools (NUQUEST) development and validation process included 8 steps. The first steps identified 1) a development strategy; 2) generic assessment tools with demonstrated validity; and 3) nutrition-specific appraisal issues. This was followed by 4) generation of nutrition-specific items and 5) development of guidance to aid users of NUQUEST. The final steps used established ratings of selected studies and feedback from independent raters to 6) assess reliability and validity; 7) assess formatting and usability; and 8) finalize NUQUEST.

Results: NUQUEST is based on the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network checklists for randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies. Using a purposive sample of 45 studies representing the 3 study designs, interrater reliability was high (Cohen's κ: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.52, 0.93) across all tools and at least moderate for individual tools (range: 0.57-1.00). The use of a worksheet improved usability and consistency of overall interrater agreement across all study designs (40% without worksheet, 80%-100% with worksheet). When compared to published ratings, NUQUEST ratings for evaluated studies demonstrated high concurrent validity (93% perfect or near-perfect agreement). Where there was disagreement, the nutrition-specific component was a contributing factor in discerning exposure methodological issues.

Conclusions: NUQUEST integrates nutrition-specific criteria with generic criteria from assessment tools with demonstrated reliability and validity. NUQUEST represents a consistent and transparent approach for evaluating RoB issues related to dietary exposure assessment commonly encountered in human nutrition studies.

Citing Articles

The Effect of Protein Intake on Bone Disease, Kidney Disease, and Sarcopenia: A Systematic Review.

Lamina T, Brandt S, Abdi H, Yam H, Hayi A, Parikh R Curr Dev Nutr. 2025; 9(3):104546.

PMID: 40078350 PMC: 11894306. DOI: 10.1016/j.cdnut.2025.104546.

Associations between Intake of Dietary Sugars and Diet Quality: A Systematic Review of Recent Literature.

Cara K, Fan Z, Chiu Y, Jiang X, Alhmly H, Chung M Nutrients. 2024; 16(11).

PMID: 38892483 PMC: 11174080. DOI: 10.3390/nu16111549.

The Effect of Dietary Patterns and Nutrient Intake on Oxidative Stress Levels in Pregnant Women: A Systematic Review.

El Sherbiny S, Squillacioti G, Colombi N, Ghelli F, Lenta E, Dalla Costa C Antioxidants (Basel). 2023; 12(7).

PMID: 37507965 PMC: 10376333. DOI: 10.3390/antiox12071427.

The Relationship between Whole-Grain Intake and Measures of Cognitive Decline, Mood, and Anxiety-A Systematic Review.

Ross A, Shertukde S, Livingston Staffier K, Chung M, Jacques P, McKeown N Adv Nutr. 2023; 14(4):652-670.

PMID: 37085091 PMC: 10334137. DOI: 10.1016/j.advnut.2023.04.003.

Using the Hierarchies of Evidence Applied to Lifestyle Medicine (HEALM) Approach to Assess the Strength of Evidence on Associations between Dietary Patterns and All-Cause Mortality.

Wingrove K, Lawrence M, Machado P, Stephens L, McNaughton S Nutrients. 2022; 14(20).

PMID: 36297026 PMC: 9609205. DOI: 10.3390/nu14204340.

References

Katrak P, Bialocerkowski A, Massy-Westropp N, Kumar S, Grimmer K . A systematic review of the content of critical appraisal tools. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2004; 4:22. PMC: 521688. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-4-22. View

Yetley E, MacFarlane A, Greene-Finestone L, Garza C, Ard J, Atkinson S . Options for basing Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs) on chronic disease endpoints: report from a joint US-/Canadian-sponsored working group. Am J Clin Nutr. 2016; 105(1):249S-285S. PMC: 5183726. DOI: 10.3945/ajcn.116.139097. View

Tricco A, Antony J, Zarin W, Strifler L, Ghassemi M, Ivory J . A scoping review of rapid review methods. BMC Med. 2015; 13:224. PMC: 4574114. DOI: 10.1186/s12916-015-0465-6. View

Tighe P, Ward M, McNulty H, Finnegan O, Dunne A, Strain J . A dose-finding trial of the effect of long-term folic acid intervention: implications for food fortification policy. Am J Clin Nutr. 2010; 93(1):11-8. DOI: 10.3945/ajcn.2010.29427. View

Johnston B, Alonso-Coello P, Bala M, Zeraatkar D, Rabassa M, Valli C . Methods for trustworthy nutritional recommendations NutriRECS (Nutritional Recommendations and accessible Evidence summaries Composed of Systematic reviews): a protocol. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018; 18(1):162. PMC: 6280455. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-018-0621-8. View

Hardy A, Benford D, Halldorsson T, Jeger M, Knutsen H, More S . Guidance on the use of the weight of evidence approach in scientific assessments. EFSA J. 2020; 15(8):e04971. PMC: 7009893. DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2017.4971. View

Lichtenstein A, Yetley E, Lau J . Application of systematic review methodology to the field of nutrition. J Nutr. 2008; 138(12):2297-306. PMC: 3415860. DOI: 10.3945/jn.108.097154. View

Zeraatkar D, Bhasin A, Morassut R, Churchill I, Gupta A, Lawson D . Characteristics and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational nutritional epidemiology: a cross-sectional study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2021; 113(6):1578-1592. PMC: 8243916. DOI: 10.1093/ajcn/nqab002. View

Zeraatkar D, Johnston B, Guyatt G . Evidence Collection and Evaluation for the Development of Dietary Guidelines and Public Policy on Nutrition. Annu Rev Nutr. 2019; 39:227-247. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-nutr-082018-124610. View

10.

Zheng C, Beresford S, Van Horn L, Tinker L, Thomson C, Neuhouser M . Simultaneous association of total energy consumption and activity-related energy expenditure with risks of cardiovascular disease, cancer, and diabetes among postmenopausal women. Am J Epidemiol. 2014; 180(5):526-35. PMC: 4143077. DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwu152. View

11.

Newberry S, Chung M, Shekelle P, Suttorp Booth M, Liu J, Maher A . Vitamin D and Calcium: A Systematic Review of Health Outcomes (Update). Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep). 2018; (217):1-929. DOI: 10.23970/AHRQEPCERTA217. View

12.

Trepanowski J, Ioannidis J . Perspective: Limiting Dependence on Nonrandomized Studies and Improving Randomized Trials in Human Nutrition Research: Why and How. Adv Nutr. 2018; 9(4):367-377. PMC: 6054237. DOI: 10.1093/advances/nmy014. View

13.

Minozzi S, Cinquini M, Gianola S, Castellini G, Gerardi C, Banzi R . Risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions showed low inter-rater reliability and challenges in its application. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019; 112:28-35. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.04.001. View

14.

Deeks J, Dinnes J, DAmico R, Sowden A, Sakarovitch C, Song F . Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. Health Technol Assess. 2003; 7(27):iii-x, 1-173. DOI: 10.3310/hta7270. View

15.

Viswanathan M, Patnode C, Berkman N, Bass E, Chang S, Hartling L . Recommendations for assessing the risk of bias in systematic reviews of health-care interventions. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017; 97:26-34. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.12.004. View

16.

Lohr K . Rating the strength of scientific evidence: relevance for quality improvement programs. Int J Qual Health Care. 2004; 16(1):9-18. DOI: 10.1093/intqhc/mzh005. View

17.

Tobias D, Wittenbecher C, Hu F . Grading nutrition evidence: where to go from here?. Am J Clin Nutr. 2021; 113(6):1385-1387. PMC: 8168365. DOI: 10.1093/ajcn/nqab124. View

18.

Guyatt G, Oxman A, Vist G, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P . GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008; 336(7650):924-6. PMC: 2335261. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD. View

19.

Katz D, Karlsen M, Chung M, Shams-White M, Green L, Fielding J . Hierarchies of evidence applied to lifestyle Medicine (HEALM): introduction of a strength-of-evidence approach based on a methodological systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019; 19(1):178. PMC: 6701153. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-019-0811-z. View

20.

Newberry S, Chung M, Booth M, Maglione M, Tang A, OHanlon C . Omega-3 Fatty Acids and Maternal and Child Health: An Updated Systematic Review. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep). 2018; (224):1-826. DOI: 10.23970/AHRQEPCERTA224. View