EAL

DLM-SF: Butter (2021)

Author and Year:

O'Sullivan T, Hafekost K, et al, 2013

PubMed ID:

23865702

Article Title:

Food sources of saturated fat and the association with mortality: a meta-analysis

Authors:

O'Sullivan TA, Hafekost K, Mitrou F, Lawrence D

Journal:

American Journal of Public Health

Year of publication:

2013

Volume:

103

Issue:

Page numbers:

31-42

Study Design:

Meta-analysis or Systematic Review

Risk of Bias Assessment Rating:

Positive

Inclusion Criteria:

Studies reporting mortality in relation to intakes of food types considered to be clinically relevant sources of naturally occurring saturated fat. Inclusion criteria included initially healthy human adult participants and dietary data reported in sufficient detail on an individual rather than a population basis.

Exclusion Criteria:

Exclusion criteria included animal models and populations defined by preexisting disease or participants younger than 16 years.

Research Purpose:

We summarized the data related to foods high in saturated fat and risk of mortality.

Blinding efforts:

Not applicable

Study Location:

Not applicable

Source(s) of Funding:

Government

Please specify names of funders:

This study was supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council (grant 572742).

Quality Criteria Checklist: Review Articles
Relevance Questions
	1.	Will the answer if true, have a direct bearing on the health of patients?	Yes
	2.	Is the outcome or topic something that patients/clients/population groups would care about?	Yes
	3.	Is the problem addressed in the review one that is relevant to dietetics practice?	Yes
	4.	Will the information, if true, require a change in practice?	Yes

Validity Questions
	1.	Was the question for the review clearly focused and appropriate?	Yes
	2.	Was the search strategy used to locate relevant studies comprehensive? Were the databases searched and the search termsused described?	Yes
	3.	Were explicit methods used to select studies to include in the review? Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified andappropriate? Wereselectionmethods unbiased?	Yes
	4.	Was there an appraisal of the quality and validity of studies included in the review? Were appraisal methodsspecified,appropriate, andreproducible?	Yes
	5.	Were specific treatments/interventions/exposures described? Were treatments similar enough to be combined?	Yes
	6.	Was the outcome of interest clearly indicated? Were other potential harms and benefits considered?	Yes
	7.	Were processes for data abstraction, synthesis, and analysis described? Were they applied consistently acrossstudies and groups? Was thereappropriate use of qualitative and/or quantitative synthesis? Was variation in findings among studies analyzed? Were heterogeneity issued considered? If data from studies were aggregated for meta-analysis, was the procedure described?	Yes
	8.	Are the results clearly presented in narrative and/or quantitative terms? If summary statistics are used, are levels ofsignificance and/or confidence intervals included?	Yes
	9.	Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? Are limitations ofthe review identified anddiscussed?	Yes
	10.	Was bias due to the review's funding or sponsorship unlikely?	Yes