Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32662035›Full record

SynthesisOsteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA2020

Prediction models and questionnaires developed to predict vitamin D status in adults: a systematic review.

G Naureen, K M Sanders, L Busija, D Scott, K Lim, J Talevski, C Connaughton, S L Brennan-Olsen

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

G NaureenLevel 3, Department of Medicine-Western Health, The University of Melbourne, 176 Furlong Road, St Albans, VIC, 3021, Australia. gnaureen@student.unimelb.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1687-8435
K M SandersLevel 3, Department of Medicine-Western Health, The University of Melbourne, 176 Furlong Road, St Albans, VIC, 3021, Australia.
L BusijaSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, St Kilda, VIC, Australia.
D ScottAustralian Institute for Musculoskeletal Science (AIMSS), The University of Melbourne and Western Health, St Albans, VIC, Australia.
K LimMary MacKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
J TalevskiLevel 3, Department of Medicine-Western Health, The University of Melbourne, 176 Furlong Road, St Albans, VIC, 3021, Australia.
C ConnaughtonLevel 3, Department of Medicine-Western Health, The University of Melbourne, 176 Furlong Road, St Albans, VIC, 3021, Australia.
S L Brennan-OlsenLevel 3, Department of Medicine-Western Health, The University of Melbourne, 176 Furlong Road, St Albans, VIC, 3021, Australia.
The University of Melbourne · AUDeakin University · AUAustralian Catholic University · AUMonash University · AURoyal Women's Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A systematic review of prediction models/questionnaires developed to identify people with deficient/insufficient vitamin D status shows the potential of self-reported information to estimate vitamin D status. The objective is to identify and compare existing screening tools, developed to identify vitamin D deficiency or insufficiency in adults. A systematic search of literature was conducted using MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science and CINAHL databases. Risk of bias and applicability concerns were assessed by quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies (QUADAS-2). Data were extracted on socio-demographic, anthropometric, risk factors, serum 25 hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] levels, statistical methods and predictive ability. A total of 12 studies were considered for inclusion for this systematic review after screening of 4851 abstracts and 15 full-text articles. Ten of twelve studies developed prediction models and 2 studies developed questionnaires. The majority of studies had low risk of bias and applicability as assessed by QUADAS-2. All studies included only self-reported predictors of vitamin D status in their final models and development of scores. Sunlight exposure and related factors were important significant contributors to the predictive ability of the models and/or questionnaires. Sensitivity and specificity of the prediction models or questionnaires ranged from 55 to 91% and 35 to 84%, respectively. Six out of twelve studies converted final models to scores associated with vitamin D status. There was no evidence that any of these existing tools have been translated into clinical practice. The prediction models or questionnaires identified in this systematic review were moderately sensitive and specific for identifying people with vitamin D deficiency or insufficiency. The substantial contribution of sunlight exposure to the prediction of vitamin D status highlights the importance of including this information when developing vitamin D screening tools.

Indexed as

Vitamin DVitamin D DeficiencyAdultHumansSelf ReportSurveys and QuestionnairesVitaminsVitamin DVitaminsAdultsPredictionQuestionnaireScreeningVitamin D

Identifiers

PMID32662035
OpenAlexW3042405970

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.