A Cross-Sectional Study Based on Forty Systematic Reviews of Foods with Function Claims (FFC) in Japan: Quality Assessment Using AMSTAR 2

• Published in: Nutrients Vol. 15; no. 9; p. 2047
• Main Authors: Kamioka, Hiroharu, Origasa, Hideki, Tsutani, Kiichiro, Kitayuguchi, Jun, Yoshizaki, Takahiro, Shimada, Mikiko, Wada, Yasuyo, Takano-Ohmuro, Hiromi
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Switzerland MDPI AG 24-04-2023; MDPI
• Subjects: Checklist; Clinical trials; Consumer protection; Consumers; Cross-Sectional Studies; Databases, Factual; Domains; Food; Japan; Literature reviews; Quality assessment; Quality control; randomized controlled trial; Research methodology; Review; risk of bias; Search methods; supplement; systematic review; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Websites; Japan; risk of bias; systematic review; supplement; food; randomized controlled trial
• ISSN: 2072-6643; 2072-6643
• DOI: 10.3390/nu15092047

The Foods with Function Claims (FFC) was introduced in Japan in April 2015 to make more products available that are labeled with health functions. The products' functionality of function claims must be explained by scientific evidence presented in systematic reviews (SRs), but the quality of recent SRs is unclear. This study assessed the quality of SRs in the FFC registered on the Consumer Affairs Agency (CAA) website in Japan.
We searched the database from 1 April to 31 October 2022. Confidence in the methodological quality of each SR was evaluated by the AMSTAR 2 checklist.
Forty SRs were randomly extracted on the basis of the eligibility criteria and recruitment procedures. Overall confidence was rated as "high" (
= 0, 0%), "moderate" (
= 0, 0%), "low" (
= 2, 5%), or "critically low" (
= 38, 95%). The mean AMSTAR 2 score was 51.1% (SD 12.1%; range 19-73%). Among the 40 SRs, the number of critical domain deficiencies was 4 in 7.5% of SRs, 3 in 52.5% of SRs, 2 in 35% of SRs, and 1 in 5% of SRs. Registering the review's protocol and comprehensive search strategies were particularly common deficiencies. Additionally, the risk of bias (RoB) was insufficiently considered.
Overall, the methodological quality of the SRs based on the FFC, introduced eight years earlier, was very poor. This was especially true in the interpretation and discussion of critical domains, which had many deficiencies in terms of protocol registration, a comprehensive literature search strategy, and accounting for the RoB.