Background Variables such as dietary intake are measured with error yet frequently used in observational epidemiology. Although this limitation is sometimes noted, these variables are still often modeled as covariates without formal correction or sincere dialogue about measurement unreliability potentially weakening the validity of statistical conclusions. Further, larger sample sizes increase power (bias) to detect spurious correlations. Counterintuitively, recent work suggested a non-monotonic relationship between confounder unreliability and how much controlling for the confounder reduces (or induces) bias when testing for an exposure-outcome association. If true, such non-monotonicity would be especially concerning for applications such as nutrition, where measurement reliability varies substantially, and large sample sizes are common. Methods We offer a detailed derivations of the square partial correlation between the outcome and exposure, controlling for the confounder. In our derivation, the measurement reliabilities of exposures and confounders are not arbitrarily constrained to be equal. Further, our theoretical results are investigated using simulations. Results Reassuringly, these derivations and simulations show that the counterintuitive non-monotonicity relationship between confounder unreliability and how much controlling for the confounder reduces (or induces) bias when testing for an exposure-outcome association is an artifact of the arbitrary constraint which forces the measurement reliabilities of exposures and confounders to be equal, which that does not always hold. Conclusions The profound and manifold effects of measurement error on estimation and statistical conclusion validity in realistic scenarios indicate that merely mentioning measurement error as a limitation and then dispensing with it is not an adequate response. We also explore questions for optimal study design subject to resource constraints when considering reliability of exposures, covariates, and outcomes.

We discuss 12 misperceptions, misstatements, or mistakes concerning the use of covariates in observational or nonrandomized research. Additionally, we offer advice to help investigators, editors, reviewers, and readers make more informed decisions about conducting and interpreting research where the influence of covariates may be at issue. We primarily address misperceptions in the context of statistical management of the covariates through various forms of modeling, although we also emphasize design and model or variable selection. Other approaches to addressing the effects of covariates, including matching, have logical extensions from what we discuss here but are not dwelled upon heavily. The misperceptions, misstatements, or mistakes we discuss include accurate representation of covariates, effects of measurement error, overreliance on covariate categorization, underestimation of power loss when controlling for covariates, misinterpretation of significance in statistical models, and misconceptions about confounding variables, selecting on a collider, and p value interpretations in covariate-inclusive analyses. This condensed overview serves to correct common errors and improve research quality in general and in nutrition research specifically.

It is increasingly assumed that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to dietary recommendations for the management and treatment of chronic diseases such as obesity. This phenomenon that not all individuals respond uniformly to a given treatment has become an area of research interest given the rise of personalized and precision medicine. To conduct, interpret, and disseminate this research rigorously and with scientific accuracy, however, requires an understanding of treatment response heterogeneity. Here, we define treatment response heterogeneity as it relates to clinical trials, provide statistical guidance for measuring treatment response heterogeneity, and highlight study designs that can quantify treatment response heterogeneity in nutrition and obesity research. Our goal is to educate nutrition and obesity researchers in how to correctly identify and consider treatment response heterogeneity when analyzing data and interpreting results, leading to rigorous and accurate advancements in the field of personalized medicine.

The goal of this study was to reproduce and evaluate the reliability of the network meta-analysis performed in the article “The best drug supplement for obesity treatment: A systematic review and network meta-analysis” by Salari et al. In recent years, it has become more common to employ network meta-analysis to assess the relative efficacy of treatments often used in clinical practice. To duplicate Salari et al.‘s research, we pulled data directly from the original trials and used Cohen’s D to determine the effect size for each treatment. We reanalyzed the data since we discovered significant differences between the data we retrieved and the data given by Salari et al. We present new effect size estimates for each therapy and conclude that the prior findings were somewhat erroneous. Our findings highlight the importance of ensuring the accuracy of network meta-analyses to determine the quality and strength of existing evidence.

Discussing causes in science, if we are to do so in away that is sensible, begins at the root. All too often, we jump to discussing specific postulated causes but do not first consider what we mean by, for example, causes of obesity or how we discernwhether something is a cause. In this paper, we address whatwe mean by a cause, discuss what might and might not constitute a reasonable causal model in the abstract, speculate about what the causal structure of obesity might be like overall and the types of things we should be looking for, and finally, delve into methods for evaluating postulated causes and estimating causal effects. We offer the view that different meanings of the concept of causal factors in obesity research are regularly being conflated, leading to confusion, unclear thinking and sometimes nonsense. We emphasize the idea of different kinds of studies for evaluating various aspects of causal effects and discuss experimental methods, assumptions and evaluations. We use analogies from other areas of research to express the plausibility that only inelegant solutions will be truly informative. Finally, we offer comments on some specific postulated causal factors. This article is part of a discussion meeting issue 'Causes of obesity: theories, conjectures and evidence (Part II)'.