EAL

DLM-SF: Butter (2021)

Author and Year:

Pimpin L, Wu J, et al, 2016

PubMed ID:

Article Title:

Is butter back? A systematic review and meta-analysis of butter consumption and risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and total mortality

Authors:

Pimpin L, Wu JHY, Haskelberg H, Del Gobbo L, Mozaffarian D

Journal:

PLoS One

Year of publication:

2016

Volume:

Issue:

Page numbers:

Study Design:

Meta-analysis or Systematic Review

Risk of Bias Assessment Rating:

Moderate

Inclusion Criteria:

All randomized controlled trials or prospective cohorts (cohort, nested case-subcohort, nested case-control) conducted in adults (18+ years) that provided a multivariate-adjusted effect estimate (or unadjusted effect estimate in trials) and a measure of statistical uncertainty of the relationship between total and added butter and all-cause mortality, incident, CVD including CHD or stroke, and incident diabetes.

Exclusion Criteria:

Animal, ecologic, quasi-experimental, and non-prospective observational studies (case reports, cross-sectional studies, and retrospective case-control studies), editorials, letters, and reviews.

Research Purpose:

Systematically review and meta-analyze the association of butter consumption with all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes in general populations.

Blinding efforts:

Not applicable

Study Location:

Not applicable

Source(s) of Funding:

Government

Please specify names of funders:

This work was supported by grant number 5R01HL085710-08: Circulating Dietary and Metabolic Fatty Acids, Major CVD Outcomes and Healthy Aging.

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?	No
	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