ReviewNutrition research and practice2018
Evidence-based approaches for establishing the 2015 Dietary Reference Intakes for Koreans.
Review in Nutrition research and practice, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Evolution of Nutrition Policy in South Korea: From Aid Recipient to Global Nutrition Policy Model.Nutrients · 2026Article
- Diabetes Fact Sheet 2025: Comparative Epidemiology and Clinical Features of Obese and Non-Obese Diabetes in Korea.Diabetes & metabolism journal · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Genetic and Lifestyle-Related Factors Influencing Serum Hyper-Propionylcarnitine Concentrations and Their Association with Metabolic Syndrome and Cardiovascular Disease Risk.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Intake of Fruit and Glycemic Control in Korean Patients with Diabetes Mellitus Using the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.Endocrinology and metabolism (Seoul, Korea) · 2023Article
- Dietary Zinc Intake and All-Cause and Cardiovascular Mortality in Korean Middle-Aged and Older Adults.Nutrients · 2023Article
- Article
- Effects of Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms and Mediterranean Diet in Overweight or Obese Postmenopausal Women With Breast Cancer Receiving Adjuvant Hormone Therapy: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.Frontiers in nutrition · 2022Article
- A Healthy Diet Rich in Calcium and Vitamin C Is Inversely Associated with Metabolic Syndrome Risk in Korean Adults from the KNHANES 2013-2017.Nutrients · 2021Article
- Association of urinary chlorophenols with central obesity in Korean girls.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2021Article
- Association Between Korean-Style Balanced Diet and Risk of Abdominal Obesity in Korean Adults: An Analysis Using KNHANES-VI (2013-2016).Frontiers in nutrition · 2021Article
- Association of protein consumption and energy intake on sarcopenia in tuberculosis survivors.Therapeutic advances in chronic disease · 2021Article
- Associating Intake Proportion of Carbohydrate, Fat, and Protein with All-Cause Mortality in Korean Adults.Nutrients · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesThe Dietary Reference Intakes for Koreans (KDRIs), a set of reference intake values, have served as a basis for guiding a balanced diet that promotes health and prevents disease in the general Korean population. In the process of developing DRIs, a systematic review has played an important role in helping the DRI committees make evidence-based and transparent decisions for updating the next DRIs. Thus, the 2015 KDRI steering committee applied the systematic review framework to the revision process of the KDRIs. The purpose of this article is to summarize the revision process for the 2015 KDRIs by focusing on the systematic review framework. MATERIALS/
methodsThe methods used to develop the systematic review framework for 2015 KDRIs followed the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and the Tufts Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC). The framework for systematic review of the 2015 KDRIs comprised of the 3 following steps: (1) development of an analytic framework and refinement of key questions and search terms; (2) literature search and data extraction; and, (3) appraisal of the literature and summarizing the results.
resultsA total of 203,237 studies were retrieved through the above procedure, with 2,324 of these studies included in the analysis. General information, main results, comments of reviewers, and results of quality assessment were extracted and organized by study design. The average points of quality appraisals were 3.0 (range, 0-5) points for intervention, 6.1 (0-9) points for cohort, 6.0 (3-9) points for nested case-control, 5.4 (1-8) points for case-control, 14.6 (0-22) points for cross-sectional studies, and 7.0 (0-11) points for reviews.
conclusionsSystematic review helped to establish the 2015 KDRIs as a useful tool for evidence-based approach. Collaborative efforts to improve the framework for systematic review should be continued for future KDRIs.
Indexed as
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.