Search

Systematically gathering scientific evidence is necessary to build and support safe concepts, treatments, and effective actions for health practice, policies, and recommendations in the field of nutrition. This didactic guide aimed to compile the steps necessary for a methodological systematic review in nutrition through real examples including the mandatory stages of conduct such as preparation of the central question, search strategy, inclusion and exclusion criteria, data collection, extraction of information, and methodological quality analysis of the studies. The article demonstrates that methodological systematic reviews are valuable to track the progress of concepts and practices. In this way, knowledge of the review process is important for the advancement of the field, and reviews are important resources for scientific information due to their synthesis of current evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The recreational use of cannabis products has risen considerably worldwide over the past decade. As the cannabis legal market grows, a critical challenge has been to make substantiated claims about the benefits and adverse health problems triggered by cannabis exposure. Despite accumulating evidence from animal studies demonstrating the role of cannabinoids on bone metabolism, there are conflicting results in clinical literature regarding their effects on bone health outcomes. We undertook a systematic review to assess the evidence for the safety of cannabis use on bone health. We searched the databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science up to March 2023 for studies evaluating the effect of the recreational use of cannabis on the bone mineral density (BMD) of adults. Among the 2620 studies reviewed, three cross-sectional studies and one randomized controlled trial comprised 4032 participants from 18 to 60 years who met the inclusion criteria. Two studies showed that cannabis exposure decreased BMD, while the other 2 indicated no alteration. Despite the different study designs, the included studies showed a low risk of bias according to the Joanna Briggs Institute tool. Eligible studies present differences in cannabis products, administration routes, and exposure determination. Further longitudinal research is needed to establish multiple clinical predictors associated with potentially negative consequences of cannabis exposure, especially in vulnerable populations such as elderly individuals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]