Publications by authors named "A M Nikolakopoulou"

Background: In nutrition research, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies provide complementary evidence. This meta-epidemiological study aims to evaluate the agreement of effect estimates from individual nutrition RCTs and cohort studies investigating a highly similar research question and to investigate determinants of disagreement.

Methods: MEDLINE, Epistemonikos, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from January 2010 to September 2021.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

The use of network meta-analysis (NMA) in sport and exercise medicine (SEM) research continues to rise as it enables the comparison of multiple interventions that may not have been assessed in a single randomised controlled trial. NMA can then inform clinicians on potentially better interventions. Despite the increased use of NMA, we have observed that in the SEM field, a key challenge for author groups can be the assessment and reporting of key assumptions, in particular transitivity and consistency.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Background: Suboptimal diet quality is a key risk factor for premature death. Assuming relatively stable energy intake among individuals, changes in nutrient intakes occur by exchanging different nutrients. Therefore we aimed to examine the association of isocaloric substitution of dietary (macro)nutrients with all-cause mortality using network meta-analysis (NMA).

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Quantifying the contributions, or weights, of comparisons or single studies to the estimates in a network meta-analysis (NMA) is an active area of research. We extend this work to include the contributions of paths of evidence. We present a general framework, based on the path-design matrix, that describes the problem of finding path contributions as a linear equation.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF
Article Synopsis
  • This text talks about how scientists check and update the results of treatments in ongoing research studies called living systematic reviews.
  • It discusses whether researchers need to worry about "multiplicity," which is when they look at many results and how that can affect their conclusions.
  • The conclusion is that multiplicity isn't a big problem for most living systematic reviews, but it could be an issue when there are specific rules about stopping or changing the research based on the results.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF