26kgg419 10.3205/26kgg419 urn:nbn:de:0183-26kgg4192 Meeting Abstract De Santis De Santis Karina Karolina KK

Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology – BIPS, Department of Prevention and Evaluation, Deutschland

author Helmer Helmer Stefanie Maria SM

University of Bremen, Working Group Evidence-Based Public Health, Institute of Public Health and Nursing Research, Bremen, Deutschland

author Matthias Matthias Katja K

Catholic University of Applied Sciences of North Rhine-Westphalia, Faculty of Health Service, Deutschland

author German Medical Science GMS Publishing House

Düsseldorf

610 20251030 engl This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Dieser Artikel ist ein Open-Access-Artikel und steht unter den Lizenzbedingungen der Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (Namensnennung). M0662 419 Deutsche Gesellschaft für Allgemeinmedizin und Familienmedizin Deutsche Gesellschaft für Sozialmedizin und Prävention Netzwerk Evidenzbasierte Medizin e.V. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Medizinische Soziologie 60. Kongress für Allgemeinmedizin und Familienmedizin Gesundheit gestalten Analoge Posterpräsentation 5: Methoden der Gesundheitsforschung Göttingen 20260930 20261002 PA-05-08 TextBackground: Evidence gaps in existing reviews can guide the production of new reviews.Aim/scientific question: This study aimed to identify evidence gaps in Cochrane reviews on nutrition and physical activity (PA) using a scoping review.Material & Methods: This review follows a prospectively registered protocol and adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guideline. Eligible studies were Cochrane reviews on nutrition and PA for healthy and at-risk populations. The search of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews through to 22 January 2026 produced 2043 hits that were screened independently by two researchers. Data on population, intervention or concept, and outcome characteristics were extracted, processed into meaningful categories, stratified by review focus (nutrition, PA, nutrition+PA), and synthesised using descriptive statistics.Results: The included Cochrane reviews (n=260) were published between 1999–2026. Review focus was on nutrition (n=193, 74%), PA (n=39, 15%), and nutrition+PA (n=28, 11%). Most reviews included any population by age and sex, adults, children, and child-caregiver dyads (nutrition focus). Less reviews included older adults (PA focus) and females (nutrition focus). Intervention or concept modality was mostly non-digital (any focus) and components were mainly supplementation (nutrition focus), diet (nutrition, nutrition+PA focus), and PA promotion (PA, nutrition+PA focus). Less reviews (any focus) included behavioural (e.g. behaviour change strategies) and other (e.g. policy) components. Most reviews (any focus) addressed any settings (e.g. population, community). Less reviews (any focus) included specific settings (e.g. vulnerable). The outcomes were mainly disease prevention and reproductive (i.e. maternal and child health; nutrition focus). Less reviews (any focus) included health promotion, functional (e.g. balance), development (e.g. growth), and psychosocial (e.g. cognitive and mental functioning) outcomes.Discussion: New Cochrane reviews on nutrition and PA need to target specific populations (especially older adults and males) and settings, assess digital interventions or concepts, and focus on components and outcomes related to general health promotion, behaviour change, and policy.Take Home Message: New Cochrane reviews should avoid one-size-fits-all approach. A focus on more specific populations, intervention or concepts, and settings could improve the uptake of evidence from such reviews in practice.Competing interests: None 0 0 0 0