4.7 Article

Screening and Treatment of Vitamin D Deficiency in UK Patients with Crohn's Disease: Self-Reported Practice among Gastroenterologists

期刊

NUTRIENTS
卷 12, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu12041064

关键词

Crohn's disease; vitamin D deficiency; screening; clinical practice

资金

  1. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)
  2. Health Education England through a Clinical Doctoral Research Fellowship [ICA-CDRF-2017-03-083]
  3. National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR) [ICA-CDRF-2017-03-083] Funding Source: National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Currently, there is no UK national recommendation to measure vitamin D levels in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). Patients with IBD are at risk of developing vitamin D deficiency with the highest prevalence frequently reported in those with Crohn's disease (CD). Treating vitamin D deficiency as part of CD management continues to be of interest. Our aim was to identify influences on practice and self-reported practice among British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG)-IBD section members in the screening and the treatment of vitamin D deficiency in patients with CD. A web-based survey was distributed via email to members of the BSG-IBD section. Reported screening practice was generally annual in those with a history of previous surgery related to CD or small bowel CD. A total of 83% of respondents (n = 64) thought that vitamin D levels should be routinely monitored in patients with CD. Treatments for mild/moderate deficiency included increased sunlight exposure (mean frequency = 21, SD = 15) and dietary advice (mean frequency = 22, SD = 14); in moderate/severe deficiency, oral supplementation was recommended (mean frequency = 14, SD = 13). Respondents reported factors most likely to influence practice, including clearer evidence and guidance. Well conducted studies in CD patients with identified vitamin D deficiency are needed to inform national guidance and clinical practice.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据