Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Methodology for Conducting Systematic Reviews for the Evidence Analysis Library

Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics

Volumn 116, Issue 2, 2016, Pages 311-318

  Handu, Deepa ^a   Moloney, Lisa ^a   Wolfram, Taylor ^a   Ziegler, Paula ^a   Acosta, Antonia ^a   Steiber, Alison ^a  

^a Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DIETETICS; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; FOOD HANDLING; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HUMAN; INTERNET; LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); METHODOLOGY; NUTRITIONAL SCIENCE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PROCEDURES; STANDARDS; STATISTICAL BIAS; TRENDS;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; DIETETICS; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; FOOD TECHNOLOGY; HUMANS; INTERNET; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; NUTRITIONAL SCIENCES; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; RESEARCH DESIGN; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC; SOCIETIES, SCIENTIFIC;

EID: 84959254270     PISSN: 22122672     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jand.2015.11.008     Document Type: Article

References (11)

1. Lichtenstein A.H., Yetley E.A., Lau J. Application of Systematic Review Methodology to the Field of Nutrition (Prepared by the Tufts Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-02-0022) 2009, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD, AHRQ Publication no. 09-0025.
2. Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. Nutrition Care Process terminology. Accessed April 15, 2015. http://ncpt.webauthor.com.
3. Richardson W.S., Wilson M.C., Nishikawa J., Hayward R.S.A. The well-built clinical question: A key to evidence-based decisions. ACP J Club 1995, 123(3):A12-13.
4. Liberati A., Altlman D.G., Tetzlaff J., et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol 2009, 62(10):31-34.
5. West S., King V., Carey T.S., et al. Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence: Summary. AHRQ Evidence Report Summaries 2002, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD, Report no. 47. AHRQ Publication no. 02-E015.
6. Higgins J.P., Thompson S.G. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 2002, 21(11):1539-1558.
7. Begg C.B., Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics 1994, 50(4):1088-1101.
8. Egger M., Davey Smith G., Schneider M., et al. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997, 315(7109):629-634.
9. Greer N., Mosser G., Logan G., Halaas G.W. A practical approach to evidence grading. Jt Comm J Qual Improv 2000, 26(12):700-712.
10. Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement. 2002. Evidence Grading System. ICSI website. Accessed January 9, 2004. http://www.icsi.org/knowledge/detail.asp?catID=113&itemID=619.
11. Tappenden K.A. A unifying vision for scientific decision-making: The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics scientific integrity principles. J Acad Nutr Diet 2015, 115(9):1486-1490.