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:
11
Issue:
6
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 | |