Nutrimedia: A novel web-based resource for the general public that evaluates the veracity of nutrition claims using the GRADE approach

Abstract

The objective of Nutrimedia is to evaluate, based on the scientific evidence, the veracity of nutrition claims disseminated to the public by the media. In this article, we describe the methodology, characteristics and contents of this web-based resource, as well as its web traffic and media impact since it was launched. Nutrimedia uses a systematic process to evaluate common beliefs, claims from newspapers and advertising identified and selected by its research team, as well as questions from the public. After formulating a structured question for each claim, we conduct a pragmatic search, prioritizing guidelines and/or systematic reviews. We evaluate the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, and classify the veracity of each claim into seven categories (true, probably true, possibly true, possibly false, probably false, false, and uncertain). For each evaluation, we develop a scientific report, a plain language summary, a summary of findings table, and, in some cases, a video. From November 2017 to May 2019, we published 30 evaluations (21 were related to foods, six to diets, and three to supplements), most of which were triggered by questions from the public (40%; 12/30). Overall, nearly half of the claims were classified as uncertain (47%; 14/30). Nutrimedia received 47,265 visitors, with a total of 181,360 pages viewed. The project and its results were reported in 84 written media and 386 websites from Spain and 14 other countries, mostly from Latin America. To our knowledge, Nutrimedia is the first web-based resource for the public that evaluates the certainty of evidence and the veracity of nutrition claims using the GRADE approach. The scientific rigor combined with the use of friendly presentation formats are distinctive features of this resource, developed to help the public to make informed choices about nutrition.

Food Literacy and Its Associated Factors in Non-Dialysis Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease in China: A Cross-Sectional Study

“…However, because of time constraints, nutrition education might not always be a priority in clinical practice. 50 Therefore, nephrology physicians and nurses are advised to assess the FL of CKD patients and ensure the effective delivery of nutritional education for patients in multiple ways, such as providing scientific hybrid online-offline resource or videos, 51,52 or organizing nutrition-related campaigns. The multivariable linear regression analysis results show that educational level is significantly associated with FL.…”

Online information in Spanish on probiotics, yoghurt, kefir, kombucha, fibre and prebiotics: an analysis of the quality of information and the certainty of the evidence supporting health claims

“…It classifies certainty or quality of evidence—that is, the degree of confidence in the results of research on a given outcome of interest (eg, irritable bowel syndrome, cancer or obesity)—as high, moderate, low or very low, according to factors that include the study methodology, consistency and precision of the results, and directness of the evidence supporting health claims on web pages 54. Very low means the true effect is probably substantially different from the estimated effect; low means the true effect might be markedly different from the estimated effect; moderate means the true effect is probably close to the estimated effect; and high means the true effect is similar to the estimated effect 54–56. Regarding an intervention effect, favourable effect means the intervention is associated with a beneficial effect on the outcome of interest; no effect means the intervention is associated with little or no difference to the outcome of interest; and uncertain means the certainty for an outcome was not reported, the results were contradictory or effects could not be estimated 57.…”

“…54 Very low means the true effect is probably substantially different from the estimated effect; low means the true effect might be markedly different from the estimated effect; moderate means the true effect is probably close to the estimated effect; and high means the true effect is similar to the estimated effect. [54][55][56] Regarding an intervention effect, favourable effect means the intervention is associated with a beneficial effect on the outcome of interest; no effect means the intervention is associated with little or no difference to the outcome of interest; and uncertain means the certainty for an outcome was not reported, the results were contradictory or effects could not be estimated. 57 The claims about the effect (favourable effect/no effect/uncertain effect) and certainty of evidence (high/moderate/low/ very low) were coded by two authors (AP-B and MR).…”

“…57 The claims about the effect (favourable effect/no effect/uncertain effect) and certainty of evidence (high/moderate/low/ very low) were coded by two authors (AP-B and MR). When more than one SR was obtained, we prioritised the most recent, and for two SRs published the same year, we prioritised the Cochrane SR. 56 If certainty of evidence differed across outcomes stated in web pages for the same intervention, overall certainty of evidence was understood as the lowest GRADE classification registered. 56 For search phrases used in the search for SRs in the Cochrane Library and PubMed, see reference 58.…”

Evaluating the Nutritional Properties of Food: A Scoping Review

“…In addition, some individuals on social media, lacking professional knowledge, may exaggerate or belittle the value of food as a publicity gimmick. Rabassa [ 20 ] described the methodology, characteristics, and contents of Nutri-media, a web-based resource, to evaluate the veracity of nutrition claims disseminated to the public by the media. However, it is still not easy for the public to make informed choices about the nutritional value of foods.…”