4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Assessing potential biomarkers of micronutrient status by using a systematic review methodology: methods

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION
Volume 89, Issue 6, Pages 1953S-1959S

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.3945/ajcn.2009.27230A

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: To explore the relation between micronutrient status and health, it is important to understand which markers of micronutrient status can be relied on and under what circumstances. Objective: The objective of this article was to develop a common systematic review methodology for use in the assessment of micronutrient status for selenium, iodine, copper, zinc, riboflavin, vitamin B-12, vitamin D, and omega-3 (n-3) long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids. Design: We developed a methodology on the basis of defining studies that clearly altered micronutrient status and then pooled data on the effects of this intervention on each specific biomarker to assess objectively the response of various status markers to changes in intake. Results: The generic methodology included defining, and systematically searching for, studies that resulted in a change in micronutrient status. Study inclusion, data extraction, and assessment of validity were conducted with a minimum of 10% independent duplication. For each study and each potential biomarker, the highest dose and longest duration intervention data were selected to assess the statistical significance of any change in intake on the status biomarker. The consistency of biomarker response was explored by subgrouping the studies according to baseline micronutrient status, sex, population group, supplementation type, dose, duration, and analytic method. Conclusion: This methodology allows systematic assessment of the usefulness of a number of biomarkers for a selection of micronutrients. Am J Clin Nutr 2009; 89(suppl): 1953S-9S.

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