One of the most important features of an evidence map is the cataloging of the large number and variety of outcomes reported in the published literature. This step typically occurs after data extraction since the scope of an evidence-map database is large. Thus, it is often difficult to pre-define all outcome categories of interest. The research team worked with the stakeholder panel to classify outcomes into clinically and biologically meaningful outcome categories that could be used in evidence-map analyses. The research team recorded outcomes reported in each publication and took the first attempt in identifying clinically and biologically relevant groups. Standardized coding was then developed for each outcome category. Feedback was sought from the stakeholder panel, and the outcome categories and coding were modified based on the final consensus of the stakeholder panel. Table 2 shows the final list of outcomes for each outcome category that are reported in the studies included in the LCS evidence-map database. Specifically, outcomes related to appetite or satiety ratings such as hunger score and desire to eat were often rated by a visual analog scale (VAS) and were classified under the ‘Appetite’ category. Outcomes focused on neurological measurements and sensing signals by the brain were classified under the ‘Energy Sensing’ category. Body weight, body composition and changes in weight-related outcomes were classified under the ‘Body Weight or Composition’ category. The ‘Dietary Intake’ category included outcomes such as energy intake, dietary intake, food intake and carbohydrate intake, and finally the ‘Glycemic’ category included glucose, insulin and gastric hormones. Our stakeholder panel did not identify additional outcomes that were not reported in the literature. Both outcome categories and full outcome lists were included in the evidence-map database, which can be used in future analyses with current or new outcome category coding.
Outcomes of interest by outcome groups in the LCS evidence-map database
Outcome groups
Outcomes of interest
Appetite
Appetite ratings using a visual analog scale (VAS), hunger, desire to eat, fullness, prospective consumption, thirst, motivational and behavioral factors reported through questionnaire
Energy sensing by brain
Neurological measurements (fMRI, EEG), sensory rating (sweetness, intensity, pleasantness, sensory specific satiation), taste, perception and preference, taste reaction time
Body weight or body composition
Body weight, body composition, BMI, waist circumferences, weight or BMI changes
Dietary intake
Energy intake, dietary intake, food intake, carbohydrate intake, sugar intake, salt intake, water intake
Wang D.D., Shams-White M., Bright O.J., Parrott J.S, & Chung M. (2016). Creating a literature database of low-calorie sweeteners and health studies: evidence mapping. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 16, 1.
Appetite ratings using a visual analog scale (VAS), hunger, desire to eat, fullness, prospective consumption, thirst, motivational and behavioral factors reported through questionnaire
Neurological measurements (fMRI, EEG), sensory rating (sweetness, intensity, pleasantness, sensory specific satiation), taste, perception and preference, taste reaction time
Body weight, body composition, BMI, waist circumferences, weight or BMI changes
Energy intake, dietary intake, food intake, carbohydrate intake, sugar intake, salt intake, water intake
No positive or negative controls were mentioned in the text.
Annotations
Based on most similar protocols
Etiam vel ipsum. Morbi facilisis vestibulum nisl. Praesent cursus laoreet felis. Integer adipiscing pretium orci. Nulla facilisi. Quisque posuere bibendum purus. Nulla quam mauris, cursus eget, convallis ac, molestie non, enim. Aliquam congue. Quisque sagittis nonummy sapien. Proin molestie sem vitae urna. Maecenas lorem.
As authors may omit details in methods from publication, our AI will look for missing critical information across the 5 most similar protocols.
About PubCompare
Our mission is to provide scientists with the largest repository of trustworthy protocols and intelligent analytical tools, thereby offering them extensive information to design robust protocols aimed at minimizing the risk of failures.
We believe that the most crucial aspect is to grant scientists access to a wide range of reliable sources and new useful tools that surpass human capabilities.
However, we trust in allowing scientists to determine how to construct their own protocols based on this information, as they are the experts in their field.
Ready to
get started?
Sign up for free.
Registration takes 20 seconds.
Available from any computer
No download required