Published online Dec 26, 2015. doi: 10.5662/wjm.v5.i4.175
Peer-review started: May 22, 2015
First decision: August 19, 2015
Revised: September 14, 2015
Accepted: September 29, 2015
Article in press: September 30, 2015
Published online: December 26, 2015
Awareness of conflicts of interest (COI) in medicine began in the 1980s. More recently, the problem has gained notoriety in nutritional sciences. COI with industry could bias study conclusions in the context of research activities and scientific publications on nutritional sciences. The issue of COI in nutritional sciences deserves more attention and requires careful analyses as biased information can negatively impact the development of dietary guidelines and, ultimately, population health. Decision-making is generally based on available, published evidence, but when the results are ambivalent, it is easier to opt for the status quo and ask for more studies. Readers might wonder if research is subsidized by industry as a counterbalancing strategy based on levels of evidence-only to slow down eminent positions and/or legislation on the food sector? How can this problem be overcome without producing paranoia and McCarthyism while trying to be as methodological as possible?
Core tip: Decision-making in the field of nutrition is based on published evidence, but when results are ambivalent, it is easier to opt for the status quo and ask for more studies. Because conflicts of interest (COI) in nutritional sciences can bias conclusions and negatively impact dietary recommendations and population health, it deserves more attention and requires careful analyses. To regard evidence properly and in a rigorous manner, COI in systematic reviews and meta-analyses must be evaluated systematically to guarantee the trustworthiness of nutrition-related studies, and must therefore be obligatory sub-analyses to reduce the risk of bias in data interpretation.