In 1999 we proposed a Modified Food Guide Pyramid for adults aged 70+ y. It has been extensively used in a variety of settings and formats to highlight the unique dietary challenges of older adults. We now propose a Modified MyPyramid for Older Adults in a format consistent with the MyPyramid graphic. It is not intended to substitute for MyPyramid, which is a multifunctional Internet-based program allowing for the calculation of individualized food-based dietary guidance and providing supplemental information on food choices and preparation. Pedagogic issues related to computer availability, Web access, and Internet literacy of older adults suggests a graphic version of MyPyramid is needed. Emphasized are whole grains and variety within the grains group; variety and nutrient density, with specific emphasis on different forms particularly suited to older adults' needs (e.g. frozen) in the vegetables and fruits groups; low-fat and non-fat forms of dairy products including reduced lactose alternatives in the milk group; low saturated fat and trans fat choices in the oils group; and low saturated fat and vegetable choices in the meat and beans group. Underlying themes stress nutrient- and fiber-rich foods within each group and food sources of nutrients rather than supplements. Fluid and physical activity icons serve as the foundation of MyPyramid for Older Adults. A flag to maintain an awareness of the potential need to consider supplemental forms of calcium, and vitamins D and B-12 is placed at the top of the pyramid. Discussed are newer concerns about potential overnutrition in the current food landscape available to older adults.

Objective Apply and compare two methods that identify signals for the need to update systematic reviews, using three Evidence-based Practice Center reports on omega-3 fatty acids as test cases. Study Design and Setting We applied the RAND method, which uses domain (subject matter) expert guidance, and a modified Ottawa method, which uses quantitative and qualitative signals. For both methods, we conducted focused electronic literature searches of recent studies using the key terms from the original reports. We assessed the agreement between the methods and qualitatively assessed the merits of each system. Results Agreement between the two methods was “substantial” or better (kappa > 0.62) in three of the four systematic reviews. Overall agreement between the methods was “substantial” (kappa = 0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45–0.83). Conclusion The RAND and modified Ottawa methods appear to provide similar signals for the possible need to update systematic reviews in this pilot study. Future evaluation with a broader range of clinical topics and eventual comparisons between signals to update reports and the results of full evidence review updates will be needed. We propose a hybrid approach combining the best features of both methods, which should allow efficient review and assessment of the need to update.

No abstract

The reporting quality of SRs has improved 3 y after publication of SR reporting standards, but the reporting of nutrition variables has not. Improved adherence to consensus methods and reporting standards should improve the utility of nutrition SRs.