To date, nutritional epidemiology has relied heavily on relatively weak methods including simple observational designs and substandard measurements. Despite low internal validity and other sources of bias, claims of causality are made commonly in this literature. Nutritional epidemiology investigations can be improved through greater scientific rigor and adherence to scientific reporting commensurate with research methods used. Some commentators advocate jettisoning nutritional epidemiology entirely, perhaps believing improvements are impossible. Still others support only normative refinements. But neither abolition nor minor tweaks are appropriate. Nutritional epidemiology, in its present state, offers utility, yet also needs marked, reformational renovation. Changing the status quo will require ongoing, unflinching scrutiny of research questions, practices, and reporting—and a willingness to admit that “good enough” is no longer good enough. As such, a workshop entitled “Toward more rigorous and informative nutritional epidemiology: the rational space between dismissal and defense of the status quo” was held from July 15 to August 14, 2020. This virtual symposium focused on: (1) Stronger Designs, (2) Stronger Measurement, (3) Stronger Analyses, and (4) Stronger Execution and Reporting. Participants from several leading academic institutions explored existing, evolving, and new better practices, tools, and techniques to collaboratively advance specific recommendations for strengthening nutritional epidemiology.

Randomization is an important tool used to establish causal inferences in studies designed to further our understanding of questions related to obesity and nutrition. To take advantage of the inferences afforded by randomization, scientific standards must be upheld during the planning, execution, analysis, and reporting of such studies. We discuss ten errors in randomized experiments from real-world examples from the literature and outline best practices for their avoidance. These ten errors include: representing nonrandom allocation as random, failing to adequately conceal allocation, not accounting for changing allocation ratios, replacing subjects in nonrandom ways, failing to account for non-independence, drawing inferences by comparing statistical significance from within-group comparisons instead of between-groups, pooling data and breaking the randomized design, failing to account for missing data, failing to report sufficient information to understand study methods, and failing to frame the causal question as testing the randomized assignment per se. We hope that these examples will aid researchers, reviewers, journal editors, and other readers to endeavor to a high standard of scientific rigor in randomized experiments within obesity and nutrition research.

Background: Childhood obesity remains a significant public health concern. Sleep duration and quality among children and youth are suboptimal worldwide. Accumulating evidence suggests an association between inadequate sleep and obesity risk, yet it is unclear whether this relationship is causal. This systematic review examines the efficacy of sleep interventions alone or as a part of lifestyle interventions for the management of overweight or obesity among children and adolescents. Methods: A keyword/reference search was performed twice, in January 2021 and May 2022 in MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE/Ovid, PsycINFO/EBSCO, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science Core Collection/Web of Science, SciELO/Web of Science, and CINAHL/EBSCO. Study eligibility criteria included youth with overweight or obesity between 5 and 17, were RCTs or quasi-randomized, and focused on the treatment of overweight and obesity with a sleep behavior intervention component. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias assessment tool (RoB2). A Meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the effect of interventions with a sleep component on BMI. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021233329). Results: A total of 8 studies (2 quasi-experiments, 6 RCTs) met inclusion criteria and accounted for 2,231 participants across 7 countries. Only one study design isolated the effect of sleep in the intervention and reported statistically significant decreases in weight and waist circumference compared to control, though we rated it at high risk of bias. Our meta-analysis showed no significant overall effect on children’s BMI as a result of participation in an intervention with a sleep component (Cohen’s d = 0.18, 95% CI= -0.04, 0.40, Z = 1.56, P = .11), though caution is warranted due to substantial heterogeneity observed across studies (Tau² = 0.08; X² = 23.05, df = 7; I² = 83.73%). Conclusions: There were mixed results on the effect of sleep interventions across included studies on BMI, other weight-related outcomes, diet, physical activity, and sleep. Except for one study at low risk of bias, three were rated as ‘some concerns’ and four ‘high risk of bias’. Findings from this study highlight the need for additional RCTs isolating sleep as a component, focusing on children and adolescents living with overweight and obesity.

The aim of the INveStigating ProblEmatic Clinical Trials in Systematic Reviews (INSPECT-SR) project is to develop a tool to identify problematic RCTs in systematic reviews. In stage 1 of the project, a list of potential trustworthiness checks was created. The checks on this list must be evaluated to determine which should be included in the INSPECT-SR tool. We attempted to apply 72 trustworthiness checks to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in 50 Cochrane reviews. For each, we recorded whether the check was passed, failed, or possibly failed or whether it was not feasible to complete the check. Following application of the checks, we recorded whether we had concerns about the authenticity of each RCT. We repeated each meta-analysis after removing RCTs flagged by each check and again after removing RCTs where we had concerns about authenticity to estimate the impact of trustworthiness assessment. Trustworthiness assessments were compared to Risk of Bias and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) assessments in the reviews. Ninety-five RCTs were assessed. Following application of the checks, assessors had some or serious concerns about the authenticity of 25% and 6% of the RCTs, respectively. Removing RCTs with either some or serious concerns resulted in 22% of meta-analyses having no remaining RCTs. However, many checks proved difficult to understand or implement, which may have led to unwarranted skepticism in some instances. Furthermore, we restricted assessment to meta-analyses with no more than five RCTs (54% contained only 1 RCT), which will distort the impact on results. No relationship was identified between trustworthiness assessment and Risk of Bias or GRADE. This study supports the case for routine trustworthiness assessment in systematic reviews, as problematic studies do not appear to be flagged by Risk of Bias assessment. The study produced evidence on the feasibility and impact of trustworthiness checks. These results will be used, in conjunction with those from a subsequent Delphi process, to determine which checks should be included in the INSPECT-SR tool. Systematic reviews collate evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to find out whether health interventions are safe and effective. However, it is now recognized that the findings of some RCTs are not genuine, and some of these studies appear to have been fabricated. Various checks for these "problematic" RCTs have been proposed, but it is necessary to evaluate these checks to find out which are useful and which are feasible. We applied a comprehensive list of "trustworthiness checks" to 95 RCTs in 50 systematic reviews to learn more about them and to see how often performing the checks would lead us to classify RCTs as being potentially inauthentic. We found that applying the checks led to concerns about the authenticity of around 1 in three RCTs. However, we found that many of the checks were difficult to perform and could have been misinterpreted. This might have led us to be overly skeptical in some cases. The findings from this study will be used, alongside other evidence, to decide which of these checks should be performed routinely to try to identify problematic RCTs, to stop them from being mistaken for genuine studies and potentially being used to inform health care decisions.