Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28083636›Full record

ArticleCalcified tissue international2017

Content Validity of a Short Calcium Intake List to Estimate Daily Dietary Calcium Intake of Patients with Osteoporosis.

L A Rasch, M A E de van der Schueren, L H D van Tuyl, I E M Bultink, J H M de Vries, W F Lems

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Calcified tissue international, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

L A RaschDepartment of Rheumatology, Amsterdam Rheumatology and Immunology Center, Location VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. l.rasch@vumc.nl.
M A E de van der SchuerenDepartment of Nutrition and Dietetics, VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
L H D van TuylDepartment of Rheumatology, Amsterdam Rheumatology and Immunology Center, Location VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
I E M BultinkDepartment of Rheumatology, Amsterdam Rheumatology and Immunology Center, Location VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
J H M de VriesDivision of Human Nutrition, Wageningen University, Bomenweg 2, 6703 HD, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
W F LemsDepartment of Rheumatology, Amsterdam Rheumatology and Immunology Center, Location VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Amsterdam UMC Location VUmc · NLWageningen University & Research · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeCalcium supplements are prescribed for prevention of osteoporotic fractures, but there is controversy whether excess of calcium intake is associated with cardiovascular events. While an accurate estimation of dietary calcium intake is a prerequisite to prescribe the adequate amount of supplementation, the most adequate tools for estimating intake are time-consuming. The aim of this study is to validate a short calcium intake list (SCaIL) that is feasible in daily clinical practice.

methodsBased on the food groups contributing most to daily dietary calcium intake and portion sizes determined in an earlier study, a three-item, 1-min SCaIL was designed. As a reference method, an extensive dietary history (DH) with specific focus on calcium-rich foods and extra attention for portion sizes was performed. Beforehand, a difference of ≥250 mg calcium between both methods was considered clinically relevant.

resultsSixty-six patients with either primary (n = 40) or secondary (n = 26) osteoporosis were included. On average, the SCaIL showed a small and clinically non-relevant difference in calcium intake with the DH: 24 ± 350 mg/day (1146 ± 440 vs. 1170 ± 485 mg, respectively; p = 0.568). Sensitivity and specificity of the SCaIL, compared to the DH, were 73 and 80%, respectively. However, in 50% of the individuals, a clinically relevant difference of ≥250 mg calcium was observed between both methods, while in 17% this was even ≥500 mg.

conclusionsThe SCaIL is a quick and easy questionnaire to estimate dietary calcium intake at a group level, but is not sufficiently reliable for use in individual patients. Remarkably, the mean dietary calcium intake estimated by the DH of 1170 mg/day indicates that a large proportion of osteoporosis patients might not even need calcium supplementation, although more data are needed to confirm this finding.

Indexed as

Dietary SupplementsAgedBone DensityCalcium, DietaryFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOsteoporosisOsteoporotic FracturesSurveys and QuestionnairesVitamin DCalcium, DietaryVitamin DCalciumDietary historyOsteoporosisQuestionnaireSupplementationValidation

Identifiers

PMID28083636
PMCPMC5313572
OpenAlexW2572593651

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.