RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Evidence-based practice (EBP) promotes shared decision-making between clinicians and patients. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to determine EBP competencies among nutrition professionals and students reported in the literature. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review by searching Medline, Embase, CINAHL, ERIC, CENTRAL, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, BIOSIS Citation Index, and clinicaltrials.gov up to March 2023. Eligible primary studies had to assess one of the 6 predefined EBP competencies: formulating clinical questions; searching literature for best evidence; assessing studies for methodological quality; effect size; certainty of evidence for effects; and determining the applicability of study results considering patient values and preferences. Two reviewers independently screened articles and extracted data, and results were summarized for each EBP competency. RESULTS: We identified 12 eligible cross-sectional survey studies, comprising 1065 participants, primarily registered dietitians, across 6 countries, with the majority assessed in the United States (n = 470). The reporting quality of the survey studies was poor overall, with 43% of items not reported. Only 1 study (8%) explicitly used an objective questionnaire to assess EBP competencies. In general, the 6 competencies were incompletely defined or reported (e.g., it was unclear what applicability and critical appraisal referred to and what study designs were appraised by the participants). Two core competencies, interpreting effect size and certainty of evidence for effects, were not assessed. CONCLUSIONS: The overall quality of study reports was poor, and the questionnaires were predominantly self-perceived, as opposed to objective assessments. No studies reported on competencies in interpreting effect size or certainty of evidence, competencies essential for optimizing clinical nutrition decision-making. Future surveys should objectively assess core EBP competencies using sensible, specific questionnaires. Furthermore, EBP competencies need to be standardized across dietetic programs to minimize heterogeneity in the training, understanding, evaluation, and application among dietetics practitioners. This study was registered at PROSPERO as CRD42022311916.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: Esophageal cancer (EC) has become one of the most alarming cancers in the world. There are significant differences in incidence and risk factors associated with the two most common histological subtypes of EC, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and esophageal adenocarcinoma, between regions. This systematic review was undertaken to analyze dietary risk factors specific to EC and its two subtypes based on World Health Organization regions. METHODS: A systematic search of five databases (Global Health, Google Scholar, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) for the past 5 y (2015-2020) was conducted from March 2020 to July 2020. Titles and abstracts were screened to determine the primary inclusion eligibility, followed by an examination of the full-text articles. Finally, 59 articles were reviewed to identify EC risk factors and compare these by region. Data were extracted using a table developed by the research team. Risk factors found in >50% of regions were highlighted. RESULTS: The study identified some major dietary risk factors for EC that were previously reported, as well as some uncommon dietary risk factors, such as salty foods and beverages, unpiped drinking water, sugar-related factors (e.g., sweet intake), and foods with high glycemic index. CONCLUSIONS: EC risk factors extend beyond those previously identified. Targeting all EC risk factors by region will assist the World Health Organization and other health agencies in providing a tailored, culturally appropriate response to effectively reduce the incidence and prevalence of EC within a region.
