A Systematic Review and Recommendations Around Frameworks for Evaluating Scientific Validity in Nutritional Genomics

Background: There is a significant lack of consistency used to determine the scientific validity of nutrigenetic research. The aims of this study were to examine existing frameworks used for determining scientific validity in nutrition and/or genetics and to determine which framework would be most appropriate to evaluate scientific validity in nutrigenetics in the future.Methods: A systematic review (PROSPERO registration: CRD42021261948) was conducted up until July 2021 using Medline, Embase, and Web of Science, with articles screened in duplicate. Gray literature searches were also conducted (June-July 2021), and reference lists of two relevant review articles were screened. Included articles provided the complete methods for a framework that has been used to evaluate scientific validity in nutrition and/or genetics. Articles were excluded if they provided a framework for evaluating health services/systems more broadly. Citing articles of the included articles were then screened in Google Scholar to determine if the framework had been used in nutrition or genetics, or both; frameworks that had not were excluded. Summary tables were piloted in duplicate and revised accordingly prior to synthesizing all included articles. Frameworks were critically appraised for their applicability to nutrigenetic scientific validity assessment using a predetermined categorization matrix, which included key factors deemed important by an expert panel for assessing scientific validity in nutrigenetics.Results: Upon screening 3,931 articles, a total of 49 articles representing 41 total frameworks, were included in the final analysis (19 used in genetics, 9 used in nutrition, and 13 used in both). Factors deemed important for evaluating nutrigenetic evidence related to study design and quality, generalizability, directness, consistency, precision, confounding, effect size, biological plausibility, publication/funding bias, allele and nutrient dose-response, and summary levels of evidence. Frameworks varied in the components of their scientific validity assessment, with most assessing study quality. Consideration of biological plausibility was more common in frameworks used in genetics. Dose-response effects were rarely considered. Two included frameworks incorporated all but one predetermined key factor important for nutrigenetic scientific validity assessment.Discussion/Conclusions: A single existing framework was highlighted as optimal for the rigorous evaluation of scientific validity in nutritional genomics, and minor modifications are proposed to strengthen it further.Systematic Review Registration:https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=261948, PROSPERO [CRD42021261948].

Enhancing Value and Uptake for Whole-Population Cohorts of Children and Parents: Methods to Integrate Registries into the Generation Victoria Cohort

Health registries are critical to understanding, benchmarking and improving quality of care for specific diseases and conditions, but face hurdles including funding, bias towards clinical rather than population samples, lack of pre-morbid and outcomes data, and absent cross-registry harmonisation and coordination. Children are particularly under-represented in registry research. This paper lays out novel principles, methods and governance to integrate diverse registries within or alongside a planned children’s mega-cohort to rapidly generate translatable evidence. GenV (Generation Victoria) will approach for recruitment parents of all newborns (estimated 150,000) over two years from mid-2021 in the state of Victoria (population 6.5 million), Australia. Its sample size and population denominator mean it will contain almost all children with uncommon or co-morbid conditions as they emerge over time. By design, it will include linked datasets, biosamples (including from pregnancy), phenotypes and participant-reported measures, all of which will span pre-morbid to long-term outcomes. We provide a vignette of a planned new registry for high-risk pregnancies to illustrate the possibilities. To our knowledge, this is the first paper to describe such a methodology designed prospectively to enhance both the clinical relevance of a large multipurpose cohort and the value and inclusivity of registries in a population.

Scientific Papers and Patents on Substances with Unproven Effects. Part 2

: Several examples are discussed in this review, where substances without proven effects were proposed for practical use within the scope of evidence-based medicines. The following is discussed here: generalizations of the hormesis concept and its use in support of homeopathy; phytoestrogens and soy products potentially having feminizing effects; glycosaminoglycans for the treatment of osteoarthritis and possibilities of their replacement by diet modifications; flavonoids recommended for the treatment of chronic venous insufficiency and varicose veins; acetylcysteine as a mucolytic agent and its questionable efficiency especially by an oral intake; stem cells and cell therapies. In conclusion, placebo therapies can be beneficial and ethically justifiable but it is not a sufficient reason to publish biased information. Importantly, placebo must be devoid of adverse effects, otherwise, it is named pseudo-placebo. Therapeutic methods with unproven effects should be tested in high-quality research shielded from the funding bias. Some issues discussed in this review are not entirely clear, and the arguments provided here can initiate a constructive discussion.