Yes, this is exactly the problem of many guidelines and scientific studies. They are just 💩. Why investing money to make 💩 studies?! Some studies have really no sense after you read them. Would be better to do just 1 good study, instead of 5 💩 studies, that cannot be used at all ... Plus if they don't use proper design, is even impossible to compare them ...
Different times after reading guidelines you just think "ok, and now?" They are just writing general informations that mostly are not "useful" at all. Dosage etc. it's all missing. What to do in which case too. Plus concrete informations that go behind the classic "Mediterranean diet and do sport", which is written in most cases, are missing too. Obviously this happens even with other topics, so not just nutrition ....
Depending of the quality of the guideline, all that is getting even worse. Without talking about position papers or other low qualities "guidelines", considered by the mass (who have no idea of scientific studies) as gold standard, like we showed last time with the vegan diet.
"The terms consensus, guideline and position paper are sometimes employed as if they were interchangeable, but the purpose of such documents and the robustness of advice vary as the evidence base does not have the same depth in each" "A position paper is a document that presents an opinion about an issue" "Position papers promote discussion on emerging topics without the experimentation and indicate original research needed to develop a guideline or present in an academic paper" https://perma.cc/2CJS-ZPTE
Otherwise it's like all shitty designed studies, that once a systematic review is checking that, they need to write "quality of the studies is just bad, more research is needed" and we end with a "no suggestion is possible", which is then used in guidelines too.
Even in our thesis 2 years ago we needed to write such shitty conclusion, because the quality of the studies was just shit.
Different times after reading guidelines you just think "ok, and now?" They are just writing general informations that mostly are not "useful" at all. Dosage etc. it's all missing. What to do in which case too. Plus concrete informations that go behind the classic "Mediterranean diet and do sport", which is written in most cases, are missing too. Obviously this happens even with other topics, so not just nutrition ....
Depending of the quality of the guideline, all that is getting even worse. Without talking about position papers or other low qualities "guidelines", considered by the mass (who have no idea of scientific studies) as gold standard, like we showed last time with the vegan diet.
"The terms consensus, guideline and position paper are sometimes employed as if they were interchangeable, but the purpose of such documents and the robustness of advice vary as the evidence base does not have the same depth in each" "A position paper is a document that presents an opinion about an issue" "Position papers promote discussion on emerging topics without the experimentation and indicate original research needed to develop a guideline or present in an academic paper" https://perma.cc/2CJS-ZPTE
Otherwise it's like all shitty designed studies, that once a systematic review is checking that, they need to write "quality of the studies is just bad, more research is needed" and we end with a "no suggestion is possible", which is then used in guidelines too.
Even in our thesis 2 years ago we needed to write such shitty conclusion, because the quality of the studies was just shit.