2016
DOI: 10.1111/jch.12909
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Science of Salt: A Regularly Updated Systematic Review of the Implementation of Salt Reduction Interventions (November 2015 to February 2016)

Abstract: The objective of this periodic review was to identify, summarize, and appraise studies relating to the implementation of salt reduction strategies that were retrieved between November 2015 and February 2016. From the established MEDLINE search, 56 studies were identified as relevant to the implementation of salt reduction initiatives. Detailed appraisal was performed on seven studies that evaluated the impact of salt reduction interventions. While study quality varied, all had one or more risks related to bias… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
12
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

3
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
(44 reference statements)
2
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Most studies (n = 22) came from just seven high‐income countries with two from two middle‐income countries. The low number of studies from low‐ and middle‐income countries is in line with our previous reviews and means that the applicability of findings generated from the current review may be limited in these settings. Further, compared to the 2015 review of salt reduction initiatives around the world which reported that 38 countries (28 high‐income and 10 middle‐income countries) have voluntary or mandatory sodium targets for foods, the current review shows that only eight of these countries (seven high‐income and one middle‐income countries) have available data on change to measure the food industry's progress to reduce the sodium content of products.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 78%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Most studies (n = 22) came from just seven high‐income countries with two from two middle‐income countries. The low number of studies from low‐ and middle‐income countries is in line with our previous reviews and means that the applicability of findings generated from the current review may be limited in these settings. Further, compared to the 2015 review of salt reduction initiatives around the world which reported that 38 countries (28 high‐income and 10 middle‐income countries) have voluntary or mandatory sodium targets for foods, the current review shows that only eight of these countries (seven high‐income and one middle‐income countries) have available data on change to measure the food industry's progress to reduce the sodium content of products.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 78%
“…Most studies (n = 22) came from just seven high-income countries with two from two middle-income countries. The low number of studies from lowand middle-income countries is in line with our previous reviews [23][24][25][26][27] and means that the applicability of findings generated from the current review may be limited in these settings. Further, compared to the 2015 review of salt reduction initiatives around the world which interventions.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 73%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This supports the findings from previous studies which demonstrated that salt reduction initiatives are likely to be more effective if they are multicomponent and incorporate intervention activities at a structural level. 4,6 Second, in terms of method of outcome assessment, as described above, the studies used different approaches. Of the two studies that shown that they can provide an acceptable estimate of mean population salt consumption levels.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Studies published from March 2016 to August 2016 were screened for eligibility using the previously established inclusion and exclusion criteria. 6 In the current review, studies evaluating the impact of salt reduction interventions were appraised for risk of bias by two independent reviewers using a modified Cochrane risk of bias tool for nonrandomized trials of intervention studies. 4,7 Detailed appraisal and commentary were also performed on these studies.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%