4.7 Article

Opportunities and challenges in conducting systematic reviews to support the development of nutrient reference values: vitamin A as an example

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION
Volume 89, Issue 3, Pages 728-733

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.3945/ajcn.2008.27154

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. PHS HHS [290-020-0022] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Nutrient reference values have significant public health and policy implications. Given the importance of defining reliable nutrient reference values, there is a need for an explicit, objective, and transparent process to set these values. The Tufts Medical Center Evidence-based Practice Center assembled a group of nutrition experts from academic institutions and federal government agencies, led participants in discussions, conducted exercises in formulating questions and evidence review criteria that would be amenable to systematic reviews of the scientific literature, performed a literature search on the questions to identify potentially relevant publications, and identified challenges and limitations of applying this method to support the development of nutrient reference values using vitamin A as an example. The workgroup concluded that the systematic review approach could be productively used to inform the development of reference values. Challenges identified in this exercise include prioritizing and defining research questions when the volume of literature is large, relying on intermediate (surrogate) outcomes when few or no studies directly linking nutrient intake with clinical outcomes are available, and determining reliable nutrient biomarkers. Ultimately, an objective, unbiased systematic review of a defined question could be useful, not only in helping to set nutrient reference values, but also for increasing the transparency of the decision making process. Am J Clin Nutr 2009; 89: 728-33.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available