ReviewNutrition research and practice2022
Issues pertaining to Mg, Zn and Cu in the 2020 Dietary Reference Intakes for Koreans.
Review in Nutrition research and practice, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the current years, it has now become necessary to establish standards for micronutrient intake based on scientific evidence. This review discusses issues related to the development of the 2020 Dietary Reference Intakes for Koreans (KDRI) for magnesium (Mg), zinc (Zn), and copper (Cu), and future research directions. Following issues were encountered when establishing the KDRI for these minerals. First, characteristics of Korean subjects need to be applied to estimate nutrient requirements. When calculating the estimated average requirement (EAR), the KDRI used the results of balance studies for Mg absorption and factorial analysis for Zn, which is defined as the minimum amount to offset endogenous losses for Zn and Mg. For Cu, a combination of indicators, such as depletion/repletion studies, were applied, wherein all reference values were based on data obtained from other countries. Second, there was a limitation in that it was difficult to determine whether reference values of Mg, Zn, and Cu intakes in the 2020 KDRI were achievable. This might be due to the lack of representative previous studies on intakes of these nutrients, and an insufficient database for Mg, Zn, and Cu contents in foods. This lack of database for mineral content in food poses a problem when evaluating the appropriateness of intake. Third, data was insufficient to assess the adequacy of Mg, Zn, and Cu intakes from supplements when calculating reference values, considering the rise in both demand and intake of mineral supplements. Mg is more likely to be consumed as a multi-nutrient supplement in combination with other minerals than as a single supplement. Moreover, Zn-Cu interactions in the body need to be considered when determining the reference intake values of Zn and Cu. It is recommended to discuss these issues present in the 2020 KDRI development for Mg, Zn, and Cu intakes in a systematic way, and to find relevant solutions.
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.