ArticleBoneKEy reports2013
Calcium revisited: part I.
Article in BoneKEy reports, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dietary calcium intake in a cohort of individuals evaluated for low bone mineral density: a multicenter Italian study.Aging clinical and experimental research · 2021Article
- Biodiversity food dataset: Centralizing chemical composition data to allow the promotion of nutrient-rich foods in Brazil.Maternal & child nutrition · 2020Article
- In vivo effect of two different dietary fiber blends on the milk calcium bioavailability.Journal of food science and technology · 2019Article
- Calcium revisited: part II calcium supplements and their effects.BoneKEy reports · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In February 2013, the US Preventive Services Task Force (see www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org) recommended 'against daily supplementation with 400 IU or less of vitamin D3 and 1000, mg or less of calcium for the primary prevention of fractures in non institutionalized postmenopausal women', which illustrates the divergence of opinions. This review wants to shed an objective light on the importance of calcium for bone health. It cannot compete with an exhaustive analysis of the literature by an institute. It does not mention all significant references. But it highlights some pivotal studies from the past and it refers to recent studies that opened new views or added essential data to known facts. It also reflects the personal perception of the author. The first part deals mainly with intake, absorption, needs and recommendations; the second part will discuss the effects of calcium and its supplements on bone.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.