Background: Following the publication of the 2018 World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) and American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR) Third Expert Report, a collaborative group was formed to develop a standardized scoring system and provide guidance for research applications. Methods: The 2018 WCRF/AICR Cancer Prevention Recommendations, goals, and statements of advice were examined to define components of the new Score. Cut-points for scoring were based on quantitative guidance in the 2018 Recommendations and other guidelines, past research that operationalized 2007 WCRF/AICR Recommendations, and advice from the Continuous Update Project Expert Panel. Results: Eight of the ten 2018 WCRF/AICR Recommendations concerning weight, physical activity, diet, and breastfeeding (optional), were selected for inclusion. Each component is worth one point: 1, 0.5, and 0 points for fully, partially, and not meeting each recommendation, respectively (Score: 0 to 7–8 points). Two recommendations on dietary supplement use and for cancer survivors are not included due to operational redundancy. Additional guidance stresses the importance of accounting for other risk factors (e.g., smoking) in relevant models. Conclusions: The proposed 2018 WCRF/AICR Score is a practical tool for researchers to examine how adherence to the 2018 WCRF/AICR Recommendations relates to cancer risk and mortality in various adult populations.

Background: Considerable attention has recently focused on dietary protein's role in the mature skeleton, prompted partly by an interest in nonpharmacologic approaches to maintain skeletal health in adult life. Objective: The aim was to conduct a systematic review and metaanalysis evaluating the effects of dietary protein intake alone and with calcium with or without vitamin D (Ca6D) on bone health measures in adults. Design: Searches across 5 databases were conducted through October 2016 including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies examining 1) the effects of "high versus low" protein intake or 2) dietary protein's synergistic effect with Ca6D intake on bone health outcomes. Two investigators independently conducted abstract and full-text screenings, data extractions, and risk of bias (ROB) assessments. Strength of evidence was rated by group consensus. Random-effects meta-analyses for outcomes with $4 RCTs were performed. Results: Sixteen RCTs and 20 prospective cohort studies were included in the systematic review. Overall ROB was medium. Moderate evidence suggested that higher protein intake may have a protective effect on lumbar spine (LS) bone mineral density (BMD) compared with lower protein intake (net percentage change: 0.52%; 95% CI: 0.06%, 0.97%, I2 : 0%; n = 5) but no effect on total hip (TH), femoral neck (FN), or total body BMD or bone biomarkers. Limited evidence did not support an effect of protein with Ca6D on LS BMD, TH BMD, or forearm fractures; there was insufficient evidence for FN BMD and overall fractures. Conclusions: Current evidence shows no adverse effects of higher protein intakes. Although there were positive trends on BMD at most bone sites, only the LS showed moderate evidence to support benefits of higher protein intake. Studies were heterogeneous, and confounding could not be excluded. High-quality, long-term studies are needed to clarify dietary protein's role in bone health. This trial was registered at www.crd.york.ac.uk as CRD42015017751.Am J Clin Nutr 2017;105:1528-43.

BackgroundEvidence mapping is an emerging tool used to systematically identify, organize and summarize the quantity and focus of scientific evidence on a broad topic, but there are currently no methodological standards. Using the topic of low-calorie sweeteners (LCS) and selected health outcomes, we describe the process of creating an evidence-map database and demonstrate several example descriptive analyses using this database.MethodsThe process of creating an evidence-map database is described in detail. The steps include: developing a comprehensive literature search strategy, establishing study eligibility criteria and a systematic study selection process, extracting data, developing outcome groups with input from expert stakeholders and tabulating data using descriptive analyses. The database was uploaded onto SRDR™ (Systematic Review Data Repository), an open public data repository.ResultsOur final LCS evidence-map database included 225 studies, of which 208 were interventional studies and 17 were cohort studies. An example bubble plot was produced to display the evidence-map data and visualize research gaps according to four parameters: comparison types, population baseline health status, outcome groups, and study sample size. This plot indicated a lack of studies assessing appetite and dietary intake related outcomes using LCS with a sugar intake comparison in people with diabetes.ConclusionEvidence mapping is an important tool for the contextualization of in-depth systematic reviews within broader literature and identifies gaps in the evidence base, which can be used to inform future research. An open evidence-map database has the potential to promote knowledge translation from nutrition science to policy.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-015-0105-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The 2018 World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research (WCRF/AICR) Score was developed to establish a simple, standardized scoring system for researchers to quantify adherence to the 2018 WCRF/AICR Cancer Prevention Recommendations and assess its impact on cancer risk and other health-related outcomes. The aim of this commentary is to clarify potential points of ambiguity in its application, focusing on aspects related to specific sub-score components (physical activity, fast foods, alcohol, and sugar sweetened drinks), how to address different data needs due to varied data collection instruments, and future exploratory score approaches. Overall, we encourage researchers to utilize the standardized Score to enhance comparability across populations and countries.Researchers who may adapt or augment the 2018 WCRF/AICR Score are strongly encouraged to provide detailed descriptions of their methods to promote transparency and reproducibility.

Background: Current methods for assessing strength of evidence prioritize the contributions of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The objective of this study was to characterize strength of evidence (SOE) tools in recent use, identify their application to lifestyle interventions for improved longevity, vitality, or successful aging, and to assess implications of the findings. Methods: The search strategy was created in PubMed and modified as needed for four additional databases: Embase, AnthropologyPlus, PsycINFO, and Ageline, supplemented by manual searching. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of intervention trials or observational studies relevant to lifestyle intervention were included if they used a specified SOE tool. Data was collected for each SOE tool. Conditions necessary for assigning the highest SOE grading and treatment of prospective cohort studies within each SOE rating framework were summarized. The expert panel convened to discuss the implications of findings for assessing evidence in the domain of lifestyle medicine. Results and conclusions: A total of 15 unique tools were identified. Ten were tools developed and used by governmental agencies or other equivalent professional bodies and were applicable in a variety of settings. Of these 10, four require consistent results from RCTs of high quality to award the highest rating of evidence. Most SOE tools include prospective cohort studies only to note their secondary contribution to overall SOE as compared to RCTs. We developed a new construct, Hierarchies of Evidence Applied to Lifestyle Medicine (HEALM), to illustrate the feasibility of a tool based on the specific contributions of diverse research methods to understanding lifetime effects of health behaviors. Assessment of evidence relevant to lifestyle medicine requires a potential adaptation of SOE approaches when outcomes and/or exposures obviate exclusive or preferential reliance on RCTs. This systematic review was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, PROSPERO [CRD42018082148].

Tea flavonoids have been suggested to offer potential benefits to cardiovascular health. This review synthesized the evidence on the relation between tea consumption and risks of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and all-cause mortality among generally healthy adults. PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Food Science and Technology Abstracts, and Ovid CAB Abstract databases were searched to identify English-language publications through 1 November 2019, including randomized trials, prospective cohort studies, and nested case-control (or case-cohort) studies with data on tea consumption and risk of incident cardiovascular events (cardiac or peripheral vascular events), stroke events (including mortality), CVD-specific mortality, or all-cause mortality. Data from 39 prospective cohort publications were synthesized. Linear meta-regression showed that each cup (236.6 mL)  increase in daily tea consumption (estimated 280 mg  and 338 mg  total flavonoids/d for black and green tea, respectively) was associated with an average 4% lower risk of CVD mortality, a 2% lower risk of CVD events, a 4% lower risk of stroke, and a 1.5% lower risk of all-cause mortality. Subgroup meta-analysis results showed that the magnitude of association was larger in elderly individuals for both CVD mortality (n = 4; pooled adjusted RR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.83, 0.96; P = 0.001), with large heterogeneity (I2 = 72.4%), and all-cause mortality (n = 3; pooled adjusted RR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.90, 0.94; P < 0.0001; I2 = 0.3%). Generally, studies with higher risk of bias appeared to show larger magnitudes of associations than studies with lower risk of bias. Strength of evidence was rated as low and moderate (depending on study population age group) for CVD-specific mortality outcome and was rated as low for CVD events, stroke, and all-cause mortality outcomes. Daily tea intake as part of a healthy habitual dietary pattern may be associated with lower risks of CVD and all-cause mortality among adults.

Background: We examined associations between adherence to the 2018 World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research (WCRF/AICR) Cancer Prevention Recommendations using the standardized 2018 WCRF/AICR Score and cancer risk among older U.S. adults. Methods: Participants included 215,102 adults in the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study followed between 2004-2011 (mean 7.0 person-years). Scores (range: 0-7 points) were calculated from self-reported weight, physical activity, and diet and alcohol intake measures. Outcomes included 17 cancers reviewed by WCRF/AICR (cases: male n=11,066; female n=8,865) and top three U.S. cancers in males (total n=4,658; lung n=2,211; prostate n=920; colorectal n=1,527) and females (total n=5,957; lung n=1,475; post-menopausal breast n=3,546; colorectal n=936). Cox proportional hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated for score and cancer risk associations, stratifying by sex and smoking status. Results: Each one-point score increase was associated with 6-13% reduced cancer risk across combined outcomes, except for male never smokers’ risk for top three cancers and male current smokers’ risk for both combined cancer outcomes. Higher scores were associated with decreased lung cancer risk only among male former smokers (HR=0.84; 95%CI: 0.79-0.89) and female current smokers (HR=0.89; 95%CI: 0.82-0.96). Higher scores were associated with 7-19% decreased breast cancer risk across smoking strata and 10-14% decreased colorectal cancer risk among male and female never and former smokers. Conclusions: Greater Recommendations adherence was associated with reduced cancer risk. Impact: Findings emphasize the importance of considering combined contributions of multiple lifestyle factors for cancer prevention among older adults and the potential modifying role of smoking history.

BackgroundProtein may have both beneficial and detrimental effects on bone health depending on a variety of factors, including protein source.ObjectiveThe aim was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the effects of animal versus plant protein intake on bone mineral density (BMD), bone mineral content (BMC) and select bone biomarkers in healthy adults.MethodsSearches across five databases were conducted through 10/31/16 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies in healthy adults that examined the effects of animal versus plant protein intake on 1) total body (TB), total hip (TH), lumbar spine (LS) or femoral neck (FN) BMD or TB BMC for at least one year, or 2) select bone formation and resorption biomarkers for at least six months. Strength of evidence (SOE) was assessed and random effect meta-analyses were performed.ResultsSeven RCTs examining animal vs. isoflavone-rich soy (Soy+) protein intake in 633 healthy peri-menopausal (n = 1) and post-menopausal (n = 6) women were included. Overall risk of bias was medium. Limited SOE suggests no significant difference between Soy+ vs. animal protein on LS, TH, FN and TB BMD, TB BMC, and bone turnover markers BSAP and NTX. Meta-analysis results showed on average, the differences between Soy+ and animal protein groups were close to zero and not significant for BMD outcomes (LS: n = 4, pooled net % change: 0.24%, 95% CI: -0.80%, 1.28%; TB: n = 3, -0.24%, 95% CI: -0.81%, 0.33%; FN: n = 3, 0.13%, 95% CI: -0.94%, 1.21%). All meta-analyses had no statistical heterogeneity.ConclusionsThese results do not support soy protein consumption as more advantageous than animal protein, or vice versa. Future studies are needed examining the effects of different protein sources in different populations on BMD, BMC, and fracture.