Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32666115›Full record

ReviewAdvances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.)2020

Optimizing Adult Protein Intake During Catabolic Health Conditions.

Stuart M Phillips, Douglas Paddon-Jones, Donald K Layman

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 29 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Stuart M PhillipsDepartment of Kinesiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Douglas Paddon-JonesDepartment of Nutrition and Metabolism, The University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, USA.
Donald K LaymanDepartment of Food Science and Human Nutrition, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The DRIs define a range of acceptable dietary intakes for each nutrient. The range is defined from the minimum intake to avoid risk of inadequacy (i.e., the RDA) up to an upper limit (UL) based on a detectable risk of adverse effects. For most nutrients, the minimum RDA is based on alleviating a clear deficiency condition, whereas higher intakes are often recommended to optimize specific health outcomes. Evidence is accumulating that similar logic should be applied to dietary recommendations for protein. Although the RDA for protein of 0.8 g/kg body weight is adequate to avoid obvious inadequacies, multiple studies provide evidence that many adults may benefit from protein quantity, quality, and distribution beyond guidelines currently defined by the RDA. Further, the dietary requirement for protein is a surrogate for the constituent amino acids and, in particular, the 9 considered to be indispensable. Leucine provides an important example of an essential amino acid where the RDA of 42 mg/kg body weight is significantly less than the 100-110 mg/kg required to optimize metabolic regulation and skeletal muscle protein synthesis. This review will highlight the benefits of higher protein diets to optimize health during aging, inactivity, bed rest, or metabolic dysfunction such as type 2 diabetes.

Indexed as

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2AdultDietDietary ProteinsHumansMuscle, SkeletalNutritional RequirementsRecommended Dietary AllowancesDietary Proteinsagingbed restprotein qualityRecommended Dietary Allowance (RDA)type 2 diabetes

Identifiers

PMID32666115
PMCPMC7360447

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.