Use of Meta-Analyses in Nutrition Research and Policy: Proceedings of a Workshop Series (2024)
Chapter: 5 Closing Remarks
5
Closing Remarks
Each of the three workshops concluded with closing remarks. The closing speaker for the first workshop was Mei Chung from Tufts University. The second workshop ended with remarks from Russell de Souza of McMaster University. The third workshop concluded with comments from Katherine Tucker of the University of Massachusetts, Lowell. Tucker also provided the final remarks for the entire workshop series.
Tucker thanked the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for sponsoring the workshop series and for providing the guiding questions that framed the presentations; the staff from the National Academies’ Food and Nutrition Board for planning and organizing the workshop series; and the workshop panelists and discussants, who both provided detailed presentations and contributed meaningfully to the discussion portions of each workshop. On behalf of the planning committee, she thanked the audience members for attending, and for contributing questions to the panel discussions.
TAKEAWAYS FROM THE WORKSHOP SERIES
As described by Tucker in the closing remarks for the workshop series, the field of nutrition research is complex and requires unique considerations. The workshop series provided discussions on strategies for maximizing the utility of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) to inform nutrition policy. She referenced the first workshop, quoting Hooper who stated that conducting an MA is easy, but doing one well is difficult. Tucker said that nutrition research is highly complex, and policy makers cannot easily individually assess a multiplicity of studies to inform their
work. Instead, they use systematic approaches such as those explained by workshop speakers throughout the series. She spoke about how nutrition research is often used to inform policy and guidelines and thus has real-life impact. Tucker emphasized the importance of systematic, consistent approaches in nutrition research, SRs, and MAs.
Tucker briefly recapped workshop one, noting Naude’s discussion of best practices for planning SRs and MAs, and Hooper’s discussion of best practices for methods and tools to reduce the risk of bias. Tucker then spoke about workshop two, highlighting Jones’s presentation on screening data for errors and avoiding publication bias. She also touched on Boyland’s presentation, which detailed the available tools that allow for risk of bias assessments and how to interpret the results of an MA. Tucker briefly discussed the presentation from Wells, which explored the statistical tools used in MA and described how to assess and address heterogeneity.
Finally, Tucker gave an overview of the presentations in workshop three given by Benkhedda and Schneeman. She spoke about Benkhedda’s description of Health Canada’s approach for developing guidance using evidence and the importance of using subgroup analysis to address heterogeneity. She also reinforced the benefits of appropriate and consistent use of high-quality appraisal and analysis tools. Tucker noted Schneeman’s discussion of critical frameworks, such as Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcome (PICO) and Nutrition Evidence Systematic Review (NESR) methodology, and how they are used across agencies to assess the strength of evidence for developing nutrition policies.
Tucker closed by expressing her appreciation for the discussions that took place across the workshop series.
