Quality of systematic reviews of the Foods with Function Claims registered at the Consumer Affairs Agency Web site in Japan: a prospective systematic review

Nutrition Research

Volumn 40, Issue , 2017, Pages 21-31

  Kamioka, Hiroharu ^a   Tsutani, Kiichiro ^b   Origasa, Hideki ^c   Yoshizaki, Takahiro ^d   Kitayuguchi, Jun ^e   Shimada, Mikiko ^f   Tang, Wentao ^g   Takano Ohmuro, Hiromi ^h  

^a TOKYO UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE   (Japan)

^b TOKYO ARIAKE UNIVERSITY OF MEDICAL AND HEALTH SCIENCES   (Japan)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TOYAMA   (Japan)

^d TOYO UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^e Physical Education and Medicine Research Center Unnan   (Japan)

^f Hidaka Rehabilitation Hospital   (Japan)

^g UNIVERSITY OF TOKYO   (Japan)

^h MUSASHINO UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

Author keywords

Foods with Function Claims; Health claim; Quality; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

DIETARY SUPPLEMENT; FOOD; FOOD PROCESSING; FOODS WITH FUNCTION CLAIMS; INFORMATION PROCESSING; JAPAN; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; QUALITY CONTROL; REGISTRATION; RELIABILITY; REVIEW; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); CHECKLIST; CONSUMER ATTITUDE; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; FACTUAL DATABASE; FUNCTIONAL FOOD; HUMAN; INTERNET; MEASUREMENT ACCURACY; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC);

CHECKLIST; CONSUMER BEHAVIOR; DATA ACCURACY; DATABASES, FACTUAL; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; FUNCTIONAL FOOD; HUMANS; INTERNET; JAPAN; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; PUBLICATION BIAS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC;

EID: 85015019420     PISSN: 02715317     EISSN: 18790739     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.nutres.2017.02.008     Document Type: Review

References (20)

1. [1] The CODEX Alimentarius Committee, http://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/about-codex/en/ [accessed January 6, 2016].
2. [2] The Ministry of Health, Labour, Welfare in Japan, http://www.mhlw.go.jp/english/topics/foodsafety/dna/02-01.html [accessed January 6, 2016].
3. [3] The CODEX Alimentarius Committee, Guidelines for use of nutrition and health claims. http://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/standards/list-of-standards/en/?provide=standards&orderField=fullReference&sort=asc&num1=CAC/GL [accessed January 6, 2016].
4. [4] The Consumer Affairs Agency, Government of Japan, http://www.caa.go.jp/foods/pdf/151224_2.pdf [accessed February 14, 2016].
5. [5] The Consumer Affairs Agency, Government of Japan, http://www.caa.go.jp/foods/pdf/150330_guideline.pdf [accessed February 14, 2016].
6. [6] National Information Center on Health Services Research and Health Care Technology, Systematic reviews definition. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/nichsr/hta101/ta101014.html [accessed December 19, 2015].
7. [7] Page, M.J., Shamseer, L., Altman, D.G., Tetzlaff, J., Sampson, M., Tricco, A.C., et al. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of biomedical research: a cross-sectional study. PLoS Med, 13(5), 2016, e1002028, 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002028.
8. [8] Shamser, L., Moher, D., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocol (PRISMA-P) 2015:elaboration and explanation. BMJ, 349, 2014, g7647, 10.1136/bmj.g7647.
9. [9] Liberati, A., Altman, D.G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P.C., Ioannidis, J.P.A., et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 151 (2009), W65–W94.
10. [10] The Consumer Affairs Agency, Government of Japan, http://www.caa.go.jp/foods/todoke_1-25.html [accessed November 1, 2015].
11. [11] Shea, B.J., Grimshaw, J.M., Wells, G.A., Boers, M., Andersson, N., Hamel, C., et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 15:7 (2007), 1–7.
12. [12] Hopewell, S., Ravaud, P., Baron, G., Boutron, I., Effect of editors' implementation of CONSORT guidelines on the reporting of abstracts in high impact medical journals: interrupted time series analysis. BMJ, 344, 2012, e4178.
13. [13] International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ [accessed January 13, 2016].
14. [14] Last, J.M., A dictionary of epidemiology. 3rd ed., 1995, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
15. [15] McAuley, L., Pham, B., Tugwell, P., Moher, D., Does the inclusion of grey literature influence the estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in meta-analyses?. Lancet 356 (2000), 1228–1231.
16. [16] Kung, J., Chiappelli, F., Cajulis, O.O., Avezova, R., Kossan, G., Chew, L., et al. From systematic reviews to clinical recommendations for evidence-based health care: validation of revised assessment of multiple systematic reviews (R-AMSTAR) for grading of clinical relevance. Open Dent J 4 (2010), 84–91.
17. [17] Pieper, D., Buechter, R.B., Li, L., Prediger, B., Eikermann, M., Systematic review found AMSTAR, but not R (evised)-AMSTAR, to have good measurement properties. J Clin Epidemiol 68 (2015), 574–583.
18. [18] U.S. National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, https://nccih.nih.gov/health/integrative-health [accessed November 28, 2015].
19. [19] Aggett, P.J., Hathcock, J., Richardson, D.P., Calder, P.C., Bischoff-Ferrari, H., Nicklas, T., et al. Nutrition issues in codex: health claims, nutrient reference values and WTO agreements: a conference report. Eur J Nutr 51 (2012), s1–s7.
20. [20] Hutton, B., Salanti, G., Caldwell, D.M., Chaimani, A., Schmid, C.H., Cameron, C., et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med 162:11 (2015), 777–784.