4.3 Review

Systematic Review of Observational Studies with Dose-Response Meta-Analysis between Folate Intake and Status Biomarkers in Adults and the Elderly

Journal

ANNALS OF NUTRITION AND METABOLISM
Volume 73, Issue 1, Pages 30-43

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000490003

Keywords

Folate; Intake-status; Dose-response; Adults-elderly

Funding

  1. Commission of the European Communities, specific Research, Technology and Development (RTD) Programme Quality of Life and Management of Living Resources, within the Sixth Framework Programme [FP6 036196-2]
  2. Ministry of Education and Science of Republic Serbia [III 41030]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Dietary reference values for folate intake vary widely across Europe. Methods: MEDLINE and Embase through November 2016 were searched for data on the association between folate intake and biomarkers (serum/plasma folate, red blood cell [RBC] folate, plasma homocysteine) from observational studies in healthy adults and elderly. The regression coefficient of biomarkers on intake (beta) was extracted from each study, and the overall and stratified pooled beta and SE (beta) were obtained by random effects meta-analysis on a double log scale. These dose-response estimates may be used to derive folate intake reference values. Results: For every doubling in folate intake, the changes in serum/plasma folate, RBC folate and plasma homocysteine were +22, +21, and -16% respectively. The overall pooled regression coefficients were beta = 0.29 (95% CI 0.21-0.37) for serum/plasma folate (26 estimates from 17 studies), beta = 0.28 (95% CI 0.21-0.36) for RBC (13 estimates from 11 studies), and beta = -0.21 (95% CI -0.31 to -0.11) for plasma homocysteine (10 estimates from 6 studies). Conclusion: These estimates along with those from randomized controlled trials can be used for underpinning dietary recommendations for folate in adults and elderly. (c) 2018 S. Karger AG, Basel

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available