Background
Burden of disease and evidence-based care
The need for trustworthy nutrition guidelines
Transparency: details on guideline development and funding are explicit and publicly accessible | |
Management of conflicts of interest: prior to finalizing guideline, panelists being considered for membership should declare all interests and activities potentially resulting in conflicts, and all conflicts should be minimized | |
Guideline group composition is multidisciplinary with methodological expertise and including patient and community involvement | |
Use of systematic reviews for guideline questions | |
Establishing evidence foundations for and rating strength of recommendations | |
Clear articulation of recommendations | |
External review by a full spectrum of stakeholders (e.g. scientific and clinical experts, patients and community representatives) |
Overcoming the limitations of current nutritional recommendations
Objectives
Methods
GRADE approach
GRADE | Definition |
---|---|
High | We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect |
Moderate | We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different |
Low | Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect |
Very Low | We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect |
Implications | Strong Recommendation | Weak Recommendation |
---|---|---|
For patients | Most individuals in this situation would want the recommended course of action and only a small proportion would not. | The majority of individuals in this situation would want the suggested course of action, but many would not. |
For clinicians | Most individuals should receive the recommended course of action. Adherence to this recommendation according to the guideline could be used as a quality criterion or performance indicator. Formal decision aids are not likely to be needed to help individuals make decisions consistent with their values and preferences. | Recognize that different choices will be appropriate for different patients, and that you must help each patient arrive at a management decision consistent with her or his values and preferences. Decision aids may well be useful helping individuals making decisions consistent with their values and preferences. Clinicians should expect to spend more time with patients when working towards a decision. |
For policy-makers | The recommendation can be used to develop policy (e.g. tax on products high in sugar or salt) | Policy-making will require substantial debates and involvement of many stakeholders. Policies are also more likely to vary between regions. Performance indicators would have to focus on the fact that adequate deliberation about the management options has taken place. |
Panel composition and conflict of interest
Initial NutriRECS research question and evidence of effects based on systematic reviews
Among adults, what is the impact of dietary patterns higher in red and processed meat versus diets lower in red and processed meat intake (replacement with fish, white meats or vegetarian or vegan diet) on the risk of outcomes important to patients and community members (i.e. overall and cardiovascular mortality, cancer, weight, quality of life, satisfaction with diet, type II diabetes, and cardiovascular outcomes [fatal and non-fatal coronary heart disease, non-fatal stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction, major adverse cardiac events (MACE)]) and on factors that may have a causal relation to cardiovascular outcomes (hypertension and cholesterol), or other adverse outcomes (haemoglobin)?
Certainty in body of evidence
Values and preferences of patients and community members related to diet restrictions and patterns
Moving from evidence to recommendations
Judgement | Research evidence | Additional considerations | |
---|---|---|---|
PROBLEM | Is the problem a priority? ○ No ○ Probably no ○ Probably yes ○ Yes ○ Varies ○ Don’t know | ||
DESIRABLE EFFECTS | How substantial are the desirable anticipated effects? ○ Trivial ○ Small ○ Moderate ○ Large ○ Varies ○ Don’t know | ||
UNDESIRABLE EFFECTS | How substantial are the undesirable anticipated effects? ○ Large ○ Moderate ○ Small ○ Trivial ○ Varies ○ Don’t know | ||
CERTAINTY OF EVIDENCE | What is the overall certainty of the evidence of effects? ○ Very low ○ Low ○ Moderate ○ High ○ No included studies | ||
VALUES | Is there important uncertainty about or variability in how much people value the main outcomes? ○ Important uncertainty or variability ○ Possibly important uncertainty or variability ○ Probably no important uncertainty or variability ○ No important uncertainty or variability | ||
BALANCE OF EFFECTS | Does the balance between desirable and undesirable effects favor the intervention or the comparison? ○ Favors the comparison ○ Probably favors the comparison ○ Does not favor either the intervention or the comparison ○ Probably favors the intervention ○ Favors the intervention ○ Varies ○ Don’t know | ||
RESOURCES REQUIRED | How large are the resource requirements (costs)? ○ Large costs ○ Moderate costs ○ Negligible costs and savings ○ Moderate savings ○ Large savings ○ Varies ○ Don’t know | ||
RESOURCES REQUIRED | What is the certainty of the evidence of resource requirements (costs)? ○ Very low ○ Low ○ Moderate ○ High ○ No included studies | ||
COST EFFECTIVENESS | Does the cost-effectiveness of the intervention favor the intervention or the comparison? ○ Favors the comparison ○ Probably favors the comparison ○ Does not favor either the intervention or the comparison ○ Probably favors the intervention ○ Favors the intervention ○ Varies ○ No included studies | ||
EQUITY | What would be the impact on health equity? ○ Reduced ○ Probably reduced ○ Probably no impact ○ Probably increased ○ Increased ○ Varies ○ Don’t know | ||
ACCEPTABILITY | Is the intervention acceptable to key stakeholders? ○ No ○ Probably no ○ Probably yes ○ Yes ○ Varies ○ Don’t know | ||
FEASIBILITY | Is the intervention feasible to implement? ○ No ○ Probably no ○ Probably yes ○ Yes ○ Varies ○ Don’t know |