ArticleNutrients2022
Evidence to Underpin Vitamin A Requirements and Upper Limits in Children Aged 0 to 48 Months: A Scoping Review.
Article in Nutrients, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessment of vitamin status; A, E and D in Egyptian neonates with IUGR: a cross sectional study.BMC pediatrics · 2024Article
- Enhancing Capacity for Food and Nutrient Intake Assessment in Population Sciences Research.Annual review of public health · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
25 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Vitamin A deficiency is a major health risk for infants and children in low- and middle-income countries. This scoping review identified, quantified, and mapped research for use in updating nutrient requirements and upper limits for vitamin A in children aged 0 to 48 months, using health-based or modelling-based approaches. Structured searches were run on Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central, from inception to 19 March 2021. Titles and abstracts were assessed independently in duplicate, as were 20% of full texts. Included studies were tabulated by question, methodology and date, with the most relevant data extracted and assessed for risk of bias. We found that the most recent health-based systematic reviews and trials assessed the effects of supplementation, though some addressed the effects of staple food fortification, complementary foods, biofortified maize or cassava, and fortified drinks, on health outcomes. Recent isotopic tracer studies and modelling approaches may help quantify the effects of bio-fortification, fortification, and food-based approaches for increasing vitamin A depots. A systematic review and several trials identified adverse events associated with higher vitamin A intakes, which should be useful for setting upper limits. We have generated and provide a database of relevant research. Full systematic reviews, based on this scoping review, are needed to answer specific questions to set vitamin A requirements and upper limits.
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.