↓ Skip to main content

A review of the systematic review process and its applicability for use in evaluating evidence for health claims on probiotic foods in the European Union

Overview of attention for article published in Nutrition Journal, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
93 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A review of the systematic review process and its applicability for use in evaluating evidence for health claims on probiotic foods in the European Union
Published in
Nutrition Journal, February 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12937-015-0004-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julie Glanville, Sarah King, Francisco Guarner, Colin Hill, Mary Ellen Sanders

Abstract

This paper addresses the use of systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the strength of evidence for health benefits of probiotic foods, especially relating to health claim substantiation in the European Union. A systematic review is a protocol-driven, transparent and replicable approach, widely accepted in a number of scientific fields, and used by many policy-setting organizations to evaluate the strength of evidence to answer a focused research question. Many systematic reviews have been published on the broad category of probiotics for many different outcomes. Some of these reviews have been criticized for including poor quality studies, pooling heterogeneous study results, and not considering publication bias. Well-designed and -conducted systematic reviews should address such issues. Systematic reviews of probiotics have an additional challenge - rarely addressed in published reviews - in that there must be a scientifically sound basis for combining evidence on different strains, species or genera. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is increasingly adopting the systematic review methodology. It remains to be seen how health claims supported by systematic reviews are evaluated within the EFSA approval process. The EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies deems randomized trials to be the best approach to generating evidence about the effects of foods on health outcomes. They also acknowledge that systematic reviews (with or without meta-analyses) are the best approach to assess the totality of the evidence. It is reasonable to use these well-established methods to assess objectively the strength of evidence for a probiotic health claim. Use of the methods to combine results on more than a single strain or defined blend of strains will require a rationale that the different probiotics are substantively similar, either in identity or in their mode of action.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 93 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 26 28%
Student > Master 13 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Student > Bachelor 6 6%
Other 16 17%
Unknown 15 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 31 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 4%
Other 17 18%
Unknown 19 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 May 2015.
All research outputs
#3,237,764
of 14,479,227 outputs
Outputs from Nutrition Journal
#561
of 1,128 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,321
of 283,860 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nutrition Journal
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,479,227 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 77th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,128 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 283,860 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them