Table 1

General characteristics of systematic reviews

Number of reviews (%)
N=150
Journal
 General nutrition journal (journals with only a nutrition focus) (eg, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition)61 (40.7%)
 Specialised nutrition journal (journals with a focus on nutrition and a specific disease area) (eg, Nutrition, Metabolism and Cardiovascular Diseases)7 (4.7%)
 General medical journal (eg, Lancet)28 (18.7%)
 Specialised medical journal (eg, Clinical Breast Cancer)54 (36%)
Country of corresponding author’s affiliation
 North America14 (9.3%)
 Europe43 (28.7%)
 Oceania13 (8.7%)
 Middle East28 (18.7%)
 Asia49 (32.7%)
 South America3 (0.7%)
Was the review conducted to inform a particular guideline or policy decision or to fulfil the needs of a particular evidence user?
 Yes6 (4%)
 No144 (96%)
Funding*
 Government support56 (37.3%)
 Institutional support34 (22.7%)
 Private not-for-profit foundation20 (13.3%)
 Food marketing/advocacy organisations4 (3.3%)
 Food companies2 (1.3%)
 No funding32 (21.3%)
 Not reported34 (22.7%)
Did the authors declare any conflicts of interest?
 Yes10 (6.7%)
 No135 (90%)
 Not reported5 (3.3%)
Exposure(s)*
 Micronutrient27 (18%)
 Macronutrient24 (16%)
 Bioactive compounds15 (10%)
 Food or beverage60 (40%)
 Food group21 (14.0%)
 Dietary pattern49 (32.7%)
 Non-nutritive components of foods/beverages25 (18.7%)
Outcome(s)*
 Cardiometabolic morbidity or mortality26 (17.3%)
 Cancer morbidity or mortality54 (36%)
 Diseases of the digestive system10 (6.7%)
 All-cause mortality9 (6%)
 Anthropometric measures8 (5.33%)
 Surrogate outcomes17 (11.3%)
 Other55 (36.7%)
Eligible study designs*
 Cohort146 (97.3%)
 Case-control97 (64.7%)
 Cross-sectional80 (53.3%)
 Randomised controlled trials74 (49.3%)
Median no of primary studies (IQR)15 (11 to 23)
Median no of participants (IQR)208 117 (84 951 to 510 954)
Method for the synthesis of results
 Meta-analysis115 (76.7%)
 Narrative21 (14%)
 Tabular/graphical summary of quantitative results without meta-analysis14 (9.3%)
Did the review assess risk of bias?
 Yes131 (87.3%)
 No19 (12.6%)
  • *Each review can be classified in more than one category.