Skip to main content

Because Statistics.

I recently stumbled onto a nearly decade old statistics/research series that's been ongoing in the academy of nutrition and dietetics journal (the series is split between JADA and JAND). I've been reading through it and appreciate its review of basic statistics and more complex methods, especially since it's framed in topics relevant to nutrition (I think what I hated most about stats was the examples being more relevant to baseball players and not biomedical scientists). In addition to JAND's efforts in stats education, ASN/AJCN have been running a series called "best (but oft-forgotten) practices).

We've all had that moment
JAND's series:

1.  Publishing nutrition research: a review of study design, statistical analyses, and other key elements of manuscript preparation


3. An Introduction to Qualitative Research for Food and Nutrition Professionals

4. A Review of Epidemiological Methods

5. Validity, Reliability, and Diagnostic Test Assessment in Nutrition-Related Research 

6. A Review of Multivariate Techniques
Part 1:
Part 2:
Part 3:

AJCN's Best (but oft-forgotten) Practices:

1. Intro:

2. Checking Assumptions Concerning Regression Residuals

3. Designing, Analyzing, and Reporting Cluster Randomized Controlled Trials:

4. Multiple Test Corrections

5. Testing for treatment effects in randomized trials by separate analyses of changes from baseline in each group is a misleading approach

6. Sensitivity analyses in randomized controlled trials

7. Expressing and interpreting associations and effect sizes in clinical outcome assessments

8. The design, analysis, and interpretation of Mendelian randomization studies.

9. Propensity score methods in clinical nutrition research.

10. Intention-to-treat, treatment adherence, and missing participant outcome data in the nutrition literature.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Beware the Meta-Analysis: Fat, Guidelines, and Biases

Headlines were abuzz this week, reporting that a new review of randomized controlled trials at the time of the low-fat guidelines didn't support their institution. Time , Business Insider , and The Verge all covered the topic with sensationalist headlines (e.g. 'We should never have told people to stop eating fat' #weneverdid). I won't spend every part of this blog picking apart the entire meta-analysis; you can read it over at the open access journal, BMJ Open Heart (1) -- (note, for myself, i'm adding an extra level of skepticism for anything that gets published in this journal). I'm also not going to defend low-fat diets either, but rather, use this meta-analysis to point out some critical shortcomings in nutritional sciences research, and note that we should be wary of meta-analyses when it comes to diet trials. First off, let's discuss randomized controlled trials (RCTs). They are considered the gold standard in biomedical research; in the hierarc...

On PURE

The PURE macronutrients studies were published in the Lancet journals today and the headlines / commentaries are reminding us that everything we thought we think we were told we knew about nutrition is wrong/misguided, etc. Below is my non-epidemiologist's run down of what happened in PURE. A couple papers came out related to PURE, but the one causing the most buzz is the relationship of the macronutrients to mortality. With a median follow up of 7.4 years, 5796 people died and 4784 had a major cardiovascular event (stroke, MCI). The paper modeled the impacts of self reported dietary carbohydrate, total fat, protein, monounsaturated (MUFA), saturated (SFA), and polyunsaturated (PUFA) fatty acid intakes on cardiovascular (CVD), non-CVD and total mortality; all macros were represented as a percentage of total self reported energy intakes and reported/analyzed in quintiles (energy intakes between 500-5000kcals/day were considered plausible..). All dietary data was determined by a ...

The Singling Out of Golden Rice

I saw earlier today that  Steven Novella, MD, over at Neurlogica blog  covered some controversy surrounding Golden Rice and it reminded me I had some thoughts to throw down about the GR issue. Dr Novella's post was in response to some of the claims made in a comment written on his post about a recent Nature Biotechnology paper on crop biofortification .  This is an area I've seen a lot of commentary on, no doubt because Golden Rice is a transgenic crop. Dr Novella makes some good commentary in his post and I suggest reading it ( here ) before the rest of this post - it will contain some additional thoughts to Dr Novella's. Dr Novella did a great job fielding the opposition to Golden Rice, which is something I've always found rather odd - I guess if you're vehemently opposed to a technology that represents a diverse array of methods (there's not one way to genetically engineer a plant) and innumerable potential outcomes (plants can be engineered for any number ...