IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0238131.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Impact of review method on the conclusions of clinical reviews: A systematic review on dietary interventions in depression as a case in point

Author

Listed:
  • Florian Thomas-Odenthal
  • Patricio Molero
  • Willem van der Does
  • Marc Molendijk

Abstract

Background: The recommendations of experts who write review articles are a critical determinant of the adaptation of new treatments by clinicians. Several types of reviews exist (narrative, systematic, meta-analytic), and some of these are more vulnerable to researcher bias than others. Recently, the interest in nutritional interventions in psychiatry has increased and many experts, who are often active researchers on this topic, have come to strong conclusions about the benefits of a healthy diet on depression. In a young and active field of study, we aimed to investigate whether the strength of an author’s conclusion is associated with the type of review article they wrote. Methods: Systematic searches were performed in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Google Scholar for narrative reviews and systematic reviews with and without meta-analyses on the effects of diet on depression (final search date: May 30th, 2020). Conclusions were extracted from the abstract and discussion section and rated as strong, moderate, or weak by independent raters who were blind to study type. A benchmark on legitimate conclusion strength was based on a GRADE assessment of the highest level of evidence. This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42020141372. Findings: 24 narrative reviews, 12 systematic reviews, and 14 meta-analyses were included. In the abstract, 33% of narrative reviews and 8% of systematic reviews came to strong conclusions, whereas no meta-analysis did. Narrative reviews were 8.94 (95% CI: 2.17, 36.84) times more likely to report stronger conclusions in the abstract than systematic reviews with and without meta-analyses. These findings were similar for conclusions in the discussion section. Narrative reviews used 45.6% fewer input studies and were more likely to be written by authors with potential conflicts of interest. A study limitation is the subjective nature of the conclusion classification system despite high inter-rater agreements and its confirmation outside of the review team. Conclusions: We have shown that narrative reviews come to stronger conclusions about the benefits of a healthy diet on depression despite inconclusive evidence. This finding empirically underscores the importance of a systematic method for summarizing the evidence of a field of study. Journal editors may want to reconsider publishing narrative reviews before meta-analytic reviews are available.

Suggested Citation

  • Florian Thomas-Odenthal & Patricio Molero & Willem van der Does & Marc Molendijk, 2020. "Impact of review method on the conclusions of clinical reviews: A systematic review on dietary interventions in depression as a case in point," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(9), pages 1-15, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0238131
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238131
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0238131
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0238131&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0238131?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniele Fanelli, 2010. "“Positive” Results Increase Down the Hierarchy of the Sciences," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(4), pages 1-10, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Fabo, Brian & Jančoková, Martina & Kempf, Elisabeth & Pástor, Ľuboš, 2024. "Fifty shades of QE: Robust evidence," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    2. Thibaut Arpinon & Romain Espinosa, 2023. "A practical guide to Registered Reports for economists," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 9(1), pages 90-122, June.
    3. Daniele Fanelli & Rodrigo Costas & Vincent Larivière, 2015. "Misconduct Policies, Academic Culture and Career Stage, Not Gender or Pressures to Publish, Affect Scientific Integrity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-18, June.
    4. Thibaut Arpinon & Romain Espinosa, 2023. "A Practical Guide to Registered Reports for Economists," Post-Print halshs-03897719, HAL.
    5. Fabo, Brian & Jančoková, Martina & Kempf, Elisabeth & Pástor, Ľuboš, 2021. "Fifty shades of QE: Comparing findings of central bankers and academics," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 1-20.
    6. Hengky Latan & Charbel Jose Chiappetta Jabbour & Ana Beatriz Lopes de Sousa Jabbour & Murad Ali, 2023. "Crossing the Red Line? Empirical Evidence and Useful Recommendations on Questionable Research Practices among Business Scholars," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 184(3), pages 549-569, May.
    7. Jeppe Nicolaisen & Tove Faber Frandsen, 2022. "Epistemic community formation: a bibliometric study of recurring authors in medical journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(7), pages 4167-4189, July.
    8. Michał Krawczyk, 2015. "The Search for Significance: A Few Peculiarities in the Distribution of P Values in Experimental Psychology Literature," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-19, June.
    9. Tierney, Warren & Hardy, Jay H. & Ebersole, Charles R. & Leavitt, Keith & Viganola, Domenico & Clemente, Elena Giulia & Gordon, Michael & Dreber, Anna & Johannesson, Magnus & Pfeiffer, Thomas & Uhlman, 2020. "Creative destruction in science," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 291-309.
    10. Piotr Bialowolski & Dorota Weziak-Bialowolska & Eileen McNeely, 2021. "The Role of Financial Fragility and Financial Control for Well-Being," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 155(3), pages 1137-1157, June.
    11. John G. Benjafield, 2020. "Vocabulary sharing among subjects belonging to the hierarchy of sciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 1965-1982, December.
    12. Marjan Bakker & Coosje L S Veldkamp & Olmo R van den Akker & Marcel A L M van Assen & Elise Crompvoets & How Hwee Ong & Jelte M Wicherts, 2020. "Recommendations in pre-registrations and internal review board proposals promote formal power analyses but do not increase sample size," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-15, July.
    13. Kimmo Eriksson & Brent Simpson, 2013. "Editorial Decisions May Perpetuate Belief in Invalid Research Findings," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(9), pages 1-6, September.
    14. Marcel A L M van Assen & Robbie C M van Aert & Michèle B Nuijten & Jelte M Wicherts, 2014. "Why Publishing Everything Is More Effective than Selective Publishing of Statistically Significant Results," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(1), pages 1-5, January.
    15. Seán Roberts & James Winters, 2013. "Linguistic Diversity and Traffic Accidents: Lessons from Statistical Studies of Cultural Traits," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(8), pages 1-13, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0238131. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.