Skip to main content
Erschienen in: European Journal of Nutrition 6/2020

13.07.2020 | Letter to the Editor

Within-group comparisons led to unsubstantiated conclusions in “Low-phytate wholegrain bread instead of high-phytate wholegrain bread in a total diet context did not improve iron status of healthy Swedish females: a 12-week, randomized, parallel-design intervention Study”

verfasst von: Colby J. Vorland, Luis M. Mestre, Sachintha S. Mendis, Andrew W. Brown

Erschienen in: European Journal of Nutrition | Ausgabe 6/2020

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Excerpt

Hoppe et al. recently published a study examining the effect of high and low phytate intake on iron status in a free-living population over 12 weeks [1], an important question in light of existing controlled feeding studies that were much more acute. However, we have concerns about the statistical analyses and interpretation that warrant a re-evaluation of the conclusions. …
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Hoppe M, Ross AB, Svelander C, Sandberg A-S, Hulthén L (2019) Low-phytate wholegrain bread instead of high-phytate wholegrain bread in a total diet context did not improve iron status of healthy Swedish females: a 12-week, randomized, parallel-design intervention study. Eur J Nutr 58(2):853–864CrossRef Hoppe M, Ross AB, Svelander C, Sandberg A-S, Hulthén L (2019) Low-phytate wholegrain bread instead of high-phytate wholegrain bread in a total diet context did not improve iron status of healthy Swedish females: a 12-week, randomized, parallel-design intervention study. Eur J Nutr 58(2):853–864CrossRef
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Allison DB, Brown AW, George BJ, Kaiser KA (2016) Reproducibility: a tragedy of errors. Nature 530(7588):27–29CrossRef Allison DB, Brown AW, George BJ, Kaiser KA (2016) Reproducibility: a tragedy of errors. Nature 530(7588):27–29CrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Bland JM, Altman DG (2011) Comparisons against baseline within randomised groups are often used and can be highly misleading. Trials 12(1):264CrossRef Bland JM, Altman DG (2011) Comparisons against baseline within randomised groups are often used and can be highly misleading. Trials 12(1):264CrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Bland JM, Altman DG (2015) Best (but oft forgotten) practices: testing for treatment effects in randomized trials by separate analyses of changes from baseline in each group is a misleading approach. Am J Clin Nutr 102(5):991–994CrossRef Bland JM, Altman DG (2015) Best (but oft forgotten) practices: testing for treatment effects in randomized trials by separate analyses of changes from baseline in each group is a misleading approach. Am J Clin Nutr 102(5):991–994CrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Lang TA, Altman DG (2015) Basic statistical reporting for articles published in biomedical journals: the “statistical analyses and methods in the published literature” or the SAMPL guidelines. Int J Nurs Stud 52(1):5–9CrossRef Lang TA, Altman DG (2015) Basic statistical reporting for articles published in biomedical journals: the “statistical analyses and methods in the published literature” or the SAMPL guidelines. Int J Nurs Stud 52(1):5–9CrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Wasserstein RL, Lazar NA (2016) The ASA statement on p-values: context, process, and purpose. Am Stat 70(2):129–133CrossRef Wasserstein RL, Lazar NA (2016) The ASA statement on p-values: context, process, and purpose. Am Stat 70(2):129–133CrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Lachin JM (2016) Fallacies of last observation carried forward analyses. Clin Trials 13(2):161–168CrossRef Lachin JM (2016) Fallacies of last observation carried forward analyses. Clin Trials 13(2):161–168CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Within-group comparisons led to unsubstantiated conclusions in “Low-phytate wholegrain bread instead of high-phytate wholegrain bread in a total diet context did not improve iron status of healthy Swedish females: a 12-week, randomized, parallel-design intervention Study”
verfasst von
Colby J. Vorland
Luis M. Mestre
Sachintha S. Mendis
Andrew W. Brown
Publikationsdatum
13.07.2020
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
European Journal of Nutrition / Ausgabe 6/2020
Print ISSN: 1436-6207
Elektronische ISSN: 1436-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00394-020-02287-0

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 6/2020

European Journal of Nutrition 6/2020 Zur Ausgabe

Leitlinien kompakt für die Innere Medizin

Mit medbee Pocketcards sicher entscheiden.

Seit 2022 gehört die medbee GmbH zum Springer Medizin Verlag

Update Innere Medizin

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.