4.7 Review

Supplementing Vitamin D in Different Patient Groups to Reduce Deficiency

期刊

NUTRIENTS
卷 15, 期 17, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu15173725

关键词

vitamin D deficiency; routine monitoring; general population; risk groups; cholecalciferol

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Studies indicate a high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in both the general population and at-risk groups. Given the association between vitamin D deficiency and various diseases, addressing this concern becomes crucial, especially in situations where routine monitoring is challenging.
Introduction: Studies indicate a high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in both the general population and at-risk groups. Given the association between vitamin D deficiency and various diseases, addressing this concern becomes crucial, especially in situations where routine monitoring is challenging. Materials and methods: A systematic literature review of the current knowledge on vitamin D dosing in diverse at-risk populations and the application of the findings to a broader clinical perspective. Results: The reviewed studies revealed a high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency among patients with musculoskeletal disorders, systemic connective tissue diseases, corticosteroid use, endocrine and metabolic conditions, malabsorption syndromes, obesity, chronic kidney disease, cancer, and central nervous system diseases. Vitamin D deficiency was often more severe compared to the general population. Higher dosages of vitamin D beyond the recommended levels for the general population were shown to be effective in improving vitamin D status in these at-risk individuals. Additionally, some studies suggested a potential link between intermittent vitamin D administration and improved adherence. Conclusion: Simplified dosing could empower clinicians to address vitamin D deficiency, particularly in high-risk populations, even without routine monitoring. Further research is needed to establish the optimal dosing regimens for specific at-risk populations.

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