Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26886626›Full record

ArticleMedicine2016

Quick and Easy Screening for Vitamin D Insufficiency in Adults: A Scoring System to Be Implemented in Daily Clinical Practice.

Mélanie Deschasaux, Jean-Claude Souberbielle, Valentina A Andreeva, Angela Sutton, Nathalie Charnaux, Emmanuelle Kesse-Guyot, Paule Latino-Martel, Nathalie Druesne-Pecollo, Fabien Szabo de Edelenyi, Pilar Galan and 3 more

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Prediction models and questionnaires developed to predict vitamin D status in adults: a systematic review.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Vitamin D Measurement: Clinical Practice and Research Implications.The journal for nurse practitioners : JNP · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Vitamin D testing: advantages and limits of the current assays.European journal of clinical nutrition · 2020
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

13 authors.

Mélanie DeschasauxFrom the Sorbonne Paris Cité Epidemiology and Statistics Research Center (CRESS) (MD, VAA, EK-G, PL-M, ND-P, FSdE, PG, SH, KE, MT), Nutritional Epidemiology Research Team (EREN), Inserm U1153, Inra U1125, Cnam, Paris 13 University, Bobigny; Department of Physiology (J-CS), Necker Hospital, Inserm U845, Paris; Jean Verdier Hospital, Biochemistry Department (AS, NC), Inserm U698, Paris 13 University, Bondy; Public Health Department (SH), Avicenne Hospital, Bobigny; and Dermatology Department (KE), Henri Mondor Hospital, Paris, France.
Jean-Claude Souberbielle
Valentina A Andreeva
Angela Sutton
Nathalie Charnaux
Emmanuelle Kesse-Guyot
Paule Latino-Martel
Nathalie Druesne-Pecollo
Fabien Szabo de Edelenyi
Pilar Galan
Serge Hercberg
Khaled Ezzedine
Mathilde Touvier

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Vitamin D is essential regarding several health outcomes. Prevention of insufficiency (25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration ≤20 ng/mL) generally entails blood testing and/or supplementation, strategies that should target at-risk individuals because blood testing is costly, and unwarranted supplementation could result in vitamin D overload with unknown long-term consequences. Our objective was to develop a simple score (Vitamin D Insufficiency Prediction score, VDIP) for identifying adults at risk of vitamin D insufficiency. Subjects were 1557 non-vitamin D-supplemented middle-aged adults from the SU.VI.MAX cohort. Scoring points corresponded to the rounded odds ratio for each individual-level characteristic associated with vitamin D insufficiency in a multivariable logistic regression model. Receiver operating characteristic curve (area under curve), sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were computed. External validation was performed in an independent cohort (NutriNet-Santé, N = 781). For female sex, overweight, low physical activity, winter season, moderate sun exposure, and very fair or dark skin 1.5 points were attributed; 2 points for latitude ≥48°N and spring season; 2.5 points for obesity and late winter; 3 points for low sun exposure. Points were then summed up for each participant. The VDIP score had an AUC = 0.70 ± 0.01 (validation: 0.67 ± 0.02). With a score of 7 or more, 70% of the participants were vitamin D-insufficient (80% in those with a score ≥9), sensitivity/specificity were 0.67/0.63, and positive and negative predictive values were 0.70/0.59. The VDIP score performed well in identifying middle-aged adults at risk of vitamin D insufficiency (score ≥7, moderate risk; score≥9, high risk), using only simple individual-level characteristics easily assessable in day-to-day clinical practice. Implementation of this simple and costless score could thus obviate unwarranted supplementation and/or blood testing.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsFemaleHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPrimary Health CareRisk AssessmentVitamin D Deficiency

Identifiers

PMID26886626
PMCPMC4998626

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.