A Serious Flaw in Nutrition Epidemiology: A Meta-Analysis Study

Peace Karl E. (), Yin JingJing, Rochani Haresh, Pandeya Sarbesh and Young Stanley
Additional contact information
Peace Karl E.: Jiann Ping-Hsu College of Public Health, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, GA 30458, USA
Yin JingJing: Jiann Ping-Hsu College of Public Health, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, GA 30458, USA
Rochani Haresh: Jiann Ping-Hsu College of Public Health, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, GA 30458, USA
Pandeya Sarbesh: Jiann Ping-Hsu College of Public Health, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, GA 30458, USA
Young Stanley: CGSTAT, Raleigh, NC 27607, USA

The International Journal of Biostatistics, 2018, vol. 14, issue 2, 10

Abstract: BackgroundMany researchers have studied the relationship between diet and health. Specifically, there are papers showing an association between the consumption of sugar sweetened beverages and Type 2 diabetes. Many meta-analyses use individual studies that do not attempt to adjust for multiple testing or multiple modeling. Hence the claims reported in a meta-analysis paper may be unreliable as the base papers do not ensure unbiased statistics.ObjectiveDetermine (i) the statistical reliability of 10 papers and (ii) indirectly the reliability of the meta-analysis study.MethodWe obtained copies of each of the 10 papers used in a metaanalysis paper and counted the numbers of outcomes, predictors, and covariates. We estimate the size of the potential analysis search space available to the authors of these papers; i. e. the number of comparisons and models available. The potential analysis search space is the number of outcomes times the number of predictors times 2c, where c is the number of covariates. This formula was applied to information found in the abstracts (Space A) as well as the text (Space T) of each base paper.ResultsThe median and range of the number of comparisons possible across the base papers are 6.5 and (2 12,288), respectively for Space A, and 196,608 and (3072–117,117,952), respectively for Space T. It is noted that the median of 6.5 for Space A may be misleading as each study has 60–165 foods that could be predictors.ConclusionGiven that testing is at the 5% level and the number of comparisons is very large, nominal statistical significance is very weak support for a claim. The claims in these papers are not statistically supported and hence are unreliable so the meta-analysis paper is also unreliable.

Keywords: observational studies; nutritional epidemiology; reliability of claims; multiple testing; multiple modeling; meta-analysis (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2018
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1515/ijb-2018-0079 (text/html)
For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:bpj:ijbist:v:14:y:2018:i:2:p:10:n:7

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://www.degruyter.com/journal/key/ijb/html

DOI: 10.1515/ijb-2018-0079

Access Statistics for this article

The International Journal of Biostatistics is currently edited by Antoine Chambaz, Alan E. Hubbard and Mark J. van der Laan

More articles in The International Journal of Biostatistics from De Gruyter
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Peter Golla ().