Some problems with Cochrane reviews of diet and chronic disease

• Published in: European journal of clinical nutrition Vol. 59; no. s1; pp. S150 - S154
• Main Author: Truswell, A.S
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Nature Publishing Group 01-08-2005
• Subjects: Cardiovascular diseases; Cardiovascular Diseases - prevention & control; chronic diseases; Chronic illnesses; Clinical nutrition; Cochrane reviews; Cohort Studies; Databases, Factual - standards; Diet; dietary fat; Dietary Fats - administration & dosage; Disease; disease course; disease prevention; Evidence-Based Medicine; Heart diseases; human nutrition; Humans; International Cooperation; Libraries, Medical; literature reviews; Long term effects; longitudinal studies; Meta-analysis; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Nutrition; nutrition research; Older people; Prevention; Publishing; randomized controlled trials; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Review Literature as Topic; Reviews; sodium chloride; Sodium Chloride, Dietary - administration & dosage; Systematic review; Vegetables
• ISSN: 0954-3007; 1476-5640
• DOI: 10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602189

The sum of evidence-based nutrition has to be more than a Cochrane-type meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Most of the evidence base in nutrition is observational, especially cohort studies. RCTs of diet change through to disease outcome are uncommon and the change has usually been addition or removal of only a single food component. Trials with whole diets through to disease outcome are rare and dietary changes made by individuals are unlikely to be an exact copy of the prescription. It is hard to even imagine a trial in which half (randomised) of a large group of middle-aged people agree to avoid vegetables for 5 y and be followed up to see who will develop cancer. Most of the USA's health claims, permitted by the Food and Drug Administration, are not supported by RCTs. But where controlled trials of nutritional change and disease outcome have been achieved, they must be reviewed very carefully. Two Cochrane reviews on diet and cardiovascular disease (CVD), published in the widely read British Medical Journal (BMJ), were criticised after their publication and the conclusions have not been subsequently adopted by expert committees. The first of these reviews was 'Dietary fat and prevention of CVD: a systematic review'. The second was 'Systematic review of long term effects of advice to reduce dietary salt in adults'. A critique of these two Cochrane reviews is presented here as a contribution to our discussion of the potential of Cochrane methodology to the reliability of knowledge about diet and disease.