Additional file 1 of Evaluating agreement between individual nutrition randomised controlled trials and cohort studies - a meta-epidemiological study
Creators: name: Stadelmaier, Julia
name: Bantle, Gina
name: Gorenflo, Lea
name: Kiesswetter, Eva
name: Nikolakopoulou, Adriani
name: Schwingshackl, Lukas
Publisher: name: figshare
Year: 2025
Subjects: Medicine
Biotechnology
Mathematical Sciences not elsewhere classified
Cancer
Science Policy

description: Additional file 1: Appendix 1. Description of eligibility criteria. Appendix 2. Criteria for Rating Population (P), Intervention/Exposure (I/E), Comparator (C), and Outcome (O) similarities. Appendix 3. Additional guidance to assess the risk of bias in cohort studies. Appendix 4. Additional guidance to assess the risk of bias in the included randomised controlled trials. Appendix 5. Methods to harmonise the type of effect estimates in study design pairs. Table S1. Overview of transformations made to the original data extraction. Table S2. Reasons for exclusion. Table S3. Characteristics of included randomised controlled trials. Table S4. Characteristics of included cohort studies. Table S5. Description of study design pairs. Table S6. Population (P), Intervention/Exposure (I/E), Control (C), and Outcome (O) similarity. Table S7. Overview of adjustments made in multivariable analysis in the included cohort studies. Table S8. Univariable meta-regression for PI/ECO similarity across pairs with binary outcomes. Table S9. Multivariable meta-regression for PI/ECO similarity (by domain) across pairs with binary outcomes. Table S10. Univariable meta-regression for risk of bias rating with the RoB2 tool across pairs with binary outcomes. Table S11. Univariable meta-regression for risk of bias rating with the ROBINS-E tool across pairs with binary outcomes. Table S12. Multivariable meta-regression for PI/ECO similarity and risk of bias rating across pairs with binary outcomes. Table S13. Overlaps between study design pairs. Figure S1. Risk of bias in individual randomised controlled trials. Figure S2. Risk of bias in randomised controlled trials (summary plot). Figure S3. Risk of bias in individual cohort studies. Figure S4. Risk of bias in cohort studies (summary plot). Figure S5. Forest plot of the comparison between bodies of evidence from randomised controlled trials versus those from cohort studies for continuous outcomes using difference of standardised mean difference. Figure S6. Forest plot of the comparison between study design pairs with binary outcomes / subgroup analysis by dietary intervention/exposure. Figure S7. Forest plot of the comparison between study design pairs with binary outcomes / subgroup analysis by type of intake. Figure S8. Forest plot of the comparison between study design pairs with binary outcomes / subgroup analysis by outcome. Figure S9. Forest plot of the comparison between study design pairs with binary outcomes / subgroup analysis by PI/ECO similarity. Figure S10. Forest plot of the comparison between study design pairs with binary outcomes / subgroup analysis by risk of bias rating. Figure S11. Forest plot of the comparison between study design pairs with binary outcomes / sensitivity analysis excluding pairs with high risk of bias rating. Figure S12. Forest plot of the comparison between study design pairs with binary outcomes / sensitivity analysis including each RCT only once for each outcome. Figure S13. Forest plot of the comparison between study design pairs with binary outcomes / sensitivity analysis including only RCT with largest sample size.