SynthesisAdvances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.)2021
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Relative Dose-Response Tests to Assess Vitamin A Status.
Synthesis in Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06759493 (Validation and Simplification of the Retinol Isotope Dilution Technique in Burkinabe Schoolchildren), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Validation and Simplification of the Retinol Isotope Dilution Technique in Burkinabe Schoolchildren
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biological evidence to define a vitamin A deficiency cutoff using total liver vitamin A reserves.Experimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.) · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Vitamin A (VA) is an essential nutrient often lacking in the diets of people in developing countries. Accurate biomarkers of VA status are vital to inform public health policy and monitor interventions. The relative dose-response (RDR) and modified-RDR (MRDR) tests are semi-quantitative screening tests for VA deficiency that have been used in Demographic and Health Surveys and VA intervention studies. A systematic review and meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity were conducted to summarize the physiological evidence to support the RDR tests as methods to assess VA status and investigate the impact of different pathological and physiological states on the tests. A total of 190 studies were screened for inclusion, with 21 studies comparing the RDR tests with the gold-standard biomarker, liver VA concentration (68% and 80% sensitivity and 85% and 69% specificity for the RDR and MRDR, respectively). Nearly all studies with VA interventions in VA-deficient populations demonstrated a response of the tests to VA intake that would be expected to improve VA status. The impacts of chronic liver disease, protein malnutrition, age, pregnancy and lactation, infection and inflammation, and various other conditions were examined in 51 studies. The RDR and MRDR tests were reported to have been used in 39 observational studies, and the MRDR has been used in at least 6 national micronutrient surveys. The RDR and MRDR are sensitive tests for determining population VA status and assessing VA interventions. Although they are robust to most physiological and pathological states, caution may be warranted when using the tests in neonates, individuals with chronic liver disease, and those with protein or iron malnutrition. Research on further improvements to the tests to increase accessibility, such as sampling breast milk instead of blood or using intramuscular doses in subjects with malabsorption, will allow wider adoption. This review was registered with PROSPERO as CRD42019124180.
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.