Assessment of the Methods Used to Develop Vitamin D and Calcium Recommendations-A Systematic Review of Bone Health Guidelines.
Adult
Bone Remodeling
/ drug effects
Bone and Bones
/ drug effects
Calcium
/ administration & dosage
Dietary Supplements
/ adverse effects
Evidence-Based Medicine
/ standards
Female
Health Status
Healthcare Disparities
/ standards
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Osteoporosis
/ diagnosis
Practice Guidelines as Topic
/ standards
Recommended Dietary Allowances
Vitamin D
/ administration & dosage
calcium
evidence-based guidelines
guideline development methods
osteoporosis prevention
public health
vitamin D
Journal
Nutrients
ISSN: 2072-6643
Titre abrégé: Nutrients
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101521595
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 Jul 2021
15 Jul 2021
Historique:
received:
02
06
2021
revised:
08
07
2021
accepted:
10
07
2021
entrez:
10
8
2021
pubmed:
11
8
2021
medline:
17
8
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
There are numerous guidelines developed for bone health. Yet, it is unclear whether the differences in guideline development methods explain the variability in the recommendations for vitamin D and calcium intake. The objective of this systematic review was to collate and compare recommendations for vitamin D and calcium across bone health guidelines, assess the methods used to form the recommendations, and explore which methodological factors were associated with these guideline recommendations. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and other databases indexing guidelines to identify records in English between 2009 and 2019. Guidelines or policy statements on bone health or osteoporosis prevention for generally healthy adults aged ≥40 years were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently extracted recommendations on daily vitamin D and calcium intake, supplement use, serum 25 hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] level, and sunlight exposure; assessed guideline development methods against 25 recommended criteria in the World Health Organization (WHO) handbook for guideline development; and, identified types identified types of evidence underpinning the recommendations. we included 47 eligible guidelines from 733 records: 74% of the guidelines provided vitamin D (200~600-4000 IU/day) and 70% provided calcium (600-1200 mg/day) recommendations, 96% and 88% recommended vitamin D and calcium supplements, respectively, and 70% recommended a specific 25(OH)D concentration. On average, each guideline met 10 (95% CI: 9-12) of the total of 25 methodological criteria for guideline development recommended by the WHO Handbook. There was uncertainty in the association between the methodological criteria and the proportion of guidelines that provided recommendations on daily vitamin D or calcium. Various types of evidence, including previous bone guidelines, nutrient reference reports, systematic reviews, observational studies, and perspectives/editorials were used to underpin the recommendations. There is considerable variability in vitamin D and calcium recommendations and in guideline development methods in bone health guidelines. Effort is required to strengthen the methodological rigor of guideline development and utilize the best available evidence to underpin nutrition recommendations in evidence-based guidelines on bone health.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
There are numerous guidelines developed for bone health. Yet, it is unclear whether the differences in guideline development methods explain the variability in the recommendations for vitamin D and calcium intake. The objective of this systematic review was to collate and compare recommendations for vitamin D and calcium across bone health guidelines, assess the methods used to form the recommendations, and explore which methodological factors were associated with these guideline recommendations.
METHODS
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and other databases indexing guidelines to identify records in English between 2009 and 2019. Guidelines or policy statements on bone health or osteoporosis prevention for generally healthy adults aged ≥40 years were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently extracted recommendations on daily vitamin D and calcium intake, supplement use, serum 25 hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] level, and sunlight exposure; assessed guideline development methods against 25 recommended criteria in the World Health Organization (WHO) handbook for guideline development; and, identified types identified types of evidence underpinning the recommendations.
RESULTS
RESULTS
we included 47 eligible guidelines from 733 records: 74% of the guidelines provided vitamin D (200~600-4000 IU/day) and 70% provided calcium (600-1200 mg/day) recommendations, 96% and 88% recommended vitamin D and calcium supplements, respectively, and 70% recommended a specific 25(OH)D concentration. On average, each guideline met 10 (95% CI: 9-12) of the total of 25 methodological criteria for guideline development recommended by the WHO Handbook. There was uncertainty in the association between the methodological criteria and the proportion of guidelines that provided recommendations on daily vitamin D or calcium. Various types of evidence, including previous bone guidelines, nutrient reference reports, systematic reviews, observational studies, and perspectives/editorials were used to underpin the recommendations.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
There is considerable variability in vitamin D and calcium recommendations and in guideline development methods in bone health guidelines. Effort is required to strengthen the methodological rigor of guideline development and utilize the best available evidence to underpin nutrition recommendations in evidence-based guidelines on bone health.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34371932
pii: nu13072423
doi: 10.3390/nu13072423
pmc: PMC8308557
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Vitamin D
1406-16-2
Calcium
SY7Q814VUP
Types de publication
Journal Article
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : National Health and Medical Research Council
ID : APP1139997
Références
BMJ. 2015 Sep 29;351:h4183
pubmed: 26420598
BMJ. 2014 Apr 01;348:g2035
pubmed: 24690624
JAMA. 2019 Aug 27;322(8):736-745
pubmed: 31454046
Nutr Rev. 2018 Apr 1;76(4):290-300
pubmed: 29425371
BMJ. 2011 Apr 19;342:d2040
pubmed: 21505219
J Gend Specif Med. 2001;4(2):36-43
pubmed: 11480096
Gerontology. 2009;55(1):3-12
pubmed: 18948685
JAMA. 2018 Apr 17;319(15):1600-1612
pubmed: 29677308
J Intern Med. 2017 Mar;281(3):300-310
pubmed: 28093824
J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377-81
pubmed: 18929686
Injury. 2016 Jun;47 Suppl 2:S11-20
pubmed: 27338221
Med J Aust. 2019 Nov;211(10):468-473
pubmed: 31680267
CMAJ. 2010 Dec 14;182(18):E839-42
pubmed: 20603348
JAMA Intern Med. 2016 Feb;176(2):175-83
pubmed: 26747333
JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Dec 2;2(12):e1917789
pubmed: 31860103
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Apr 14;(4):CD000227
pubmed: 24729336
Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2018 Nov;6(11):847-858
pubmed: 30293909
Adv Exp Med Biol. 2017;1033:3-12
pubmed: 29101648
Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2008;17 Suppl 2:399-404
pubmed: 18460438
JAMA. 2017 Dec 26;318(24):2466-2482
pubmed: 29279934
J Endocrinol Invest. 2010;33(7 Suppl):39-44
pubmed: 20938225
Lancet Public Health. 2017 May;2(5):e239-e246
pubmed: 29253489
Maturitas. 2010 Feb;65(2):161-6
pubmed: 19733988
BMJ Glob Health. 2019 Jan 25;4(Suppl 1):e000844
pubmed: 30775012
Am J Clin Nutr. 1996 Mar;63(3 Suppl):433S-436S
pubmed: 8615336
Am J Clin Nutr. 2019 Jan 1;109(1):207-217
pubmed: 30624670
Implement Sci. 2012 Jul 04;7:61
pubmed: 22762158
JAMA. 2018 Apr 17;319(15):1592-1599
pubmed: 29677309
World J Orthop. 2019 Mar 18;10(3):166-175
pubmed: 30918799
Health Aff (Millwood). 2004 Mar-Apr;23(2):206-14
pubmed: 15046145
BMJ Open. 2019 Nov 7;9(11):e031840
pubmed: 31699738
Lancet. 2014 Jan 11;383(9912):146-55
pubmed: 24119980
Health Res Policy Syst. 2006 Dec 01;4:16
pubmed: 17140441