ReviewNutrition research and practice2022
Perspectives on the systematic review for the 2020 Dietary Reference Intakes for Koreans for calcium.
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. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Persistent Calcium Inadequacy in Korean Adults over 20 Years: Analysis of the 1998-2018 Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
An accurate assessment of the recommended calcium (Ca) intake may contribute to reducing the risk of fractures and chronic diseases, ultimately improving quality of life. This review was performed to summarize key findings of Ca studies, investigate the effect of Ca intake on health outcomes, and determine the adequacy of evidence to revise the 2015 Dietary Reference Intakes for Koreans (KDRIs) for Ca in 2020. Databases were searched for intervention studies that assessed health outcomes by providing Ca in diets or as supplements. The framework of the systematic review comprised conducting literature searches, data extraction, quality assessment of the literature, and summarizing key findings relevant to set the Estimated Average Requirement (EAR) and Tolerable Upper Intake Level (UL) for Ca for the 2020 KDRI. The final search was performed in June 2019. A total of 13,309 studies were identified through databases and manual search. Sixtyfive studies were included in the final quality assessment and were summarized according to health indicators. As bone health was used as an indicator of the EAR for Ca, literature reports on bone health were further categorized by the life-cycle stage of the participants. This systematic review did not find new evidence that could be applied to the general Korean adult population, including postmenopausal women, for defining a new EAR for Ca in the 2020 KDRIs. Evidence in most of the reviewed literature was considered weak; however, some evidence was found that could improve the criteria on how the EAR for Ca was determined in children and adolescents. A review of the literature for the 2020 KDRIs for Ca did not find strong evidence in order to change the recommended values of the 2015 KDRIs. More clinical interventions are required among Koreans to strengthen the body of evidence to warrant the revision of the KDRIs.
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.