Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24624051›Full record

ReviewFood & nutrition research2014

Health effects of protein intake in healthy elderly populations: a systematic literature review.

Agnes N Pedersen, Tommy Cederholm

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Food & nutrition research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Protein intake and bone health: an umbrella review of systematic reviews for the evidence-based guideline of the German Nutrition Society.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Agnes N PedersenDTU Food, National Food Institute, Søborg, Denmark.
Tommy CederholmDepartment of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of this systematic review is to assess the evidence behind the dietary requirement of protein and to assess the health effects of varying protein intake in healthy elderly persons in order to evaluate the evidence for an optimal protein intake. The literature search covered year 2000-2011. Prospective cohort, case-control, and intervention studies of a general healthy population in settings similar to the Nordic countries with protein intake from food-based sources were included. Out of a total of 301 abstracts, 152 full papers were identified as potentially relevant. After careful scrutiny, 23 papers were quality graded as A (highest, n=1), B (n=18), or C (n=4). The grade of evidence was classified as convincing, probable, suggestive, or inconclusive. The evidence is assessed as: probable for an estimated average requirement (EAR) of 0.66 g good-quality protein/kg body weight (BW)/day based on nitrogen balance (N-balance) studies and the subsequent recommended dietary allowance (RDA) of 0.83 g good-quality protein/kg BW/day representing the minimum dietary protein needs of virtually all healthy elderly persons. Regarding the optimal level of protein related to functional outcomes like maintenance of bone mass, muscle mass, and strength, as well as for morbidity and mortality, the evidence is ranging from suggestive to inconclusive. Results from particularly prospective cohort studies suggest a safe intake of up to at least 1.2-1.5 g protein/kg BW/day or approximately 15-20 E%. Overall, many of the included prospective cohort studies were difficult to fully evaluate since results mainly were obtained by food frequency questionnaires that were flawed by underreported intakes, although some studies were 'calibrated' to correct for under- or over-reporting. In conclusion, the evidence is assessed as probable regarding the EAR based on N-balance studies and suggestive to inconclusive regarding an optimal protein intake higher than the estimated RDA assessed from N-balance studies, but an exact level cannot be determined. Potentially adverse effects of a protein intake exceeding 20-23 E% remain to be investigated.

Indexed as

chronic diseasemortalitynitrogen balanceNordic nutrition recommendationsold ageprotein requirementssarcopenia

Identifiers

PMID24624051
PMCPMC3926464

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.