2011
DOI: 10.1017/s1368980011000413
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Vitamin D – the big D-bate

Abstract: In this issue of our journal we have invited a number of experts to comment on the recommended levels of intake of vitamin D (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9) . This invitation is done in order to shed some light on the ongoing debate regarding the increased recommended level of intake of vitamin D from the Institute of Medicine North America (10) . Our Associate Editor Oliver Gillie has also written his own editorial in the area (11) .The journal finds this debate of great importance, not only as a part of a sound … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Baseline characteristics of summer and winter subjects were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test for continuous data or by the chi-square test for categorical data as appropriate. For multivariate regression, serum concentrations of 25(OH)D for both summer and winter were not normally distributed and were log (10) transformed prior to analysis. To facilitate meaningful comparisons of predictor variables, standardized β-coefficient estimates are presented for the regression analysis.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Baseline characteristics of summer and winter subjects were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test for continuous data or by the chi-square test for categorical data as appropriate. For multivariate regression, serum concentrations of 25(OH)D for both summer and winter were not normally distributed and were log (10) transformed prior to analysis. To facilitate meaningful comparisons of predictor variables, standardized β-coefficient estimates are presented for the regression analysis.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…7 This level is based on the criteria that it will meet the bone health requirements of 97.5% of the population and maintain circulating levels of 25-hydroxy-vitamin D (25(OH)D) at 450 nmol/l. 7 However, optimal levels of vitamin D are in dispute, [8][9][10] and a substantial body of evidence indicates that serum levels 475 nmol/l are conducive to multiple health benefits beyond bone health (for an overview, see Holick 11 ). Indeed, since the release of the IOM report in 2011, the Endocrine Society has released guidelines stating that vitamin D deficiency is defined as serum 25(OH)D levels o 50 nmol/l, vitamin D insufficiency as levels o 75 nmol/l and levels above 75 nmol/l as sufficient.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Measures of agreement were calculated for the entire sample as well as by race. Using recent, though still debated (20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25), guidelines proposed by the Institute of Medicine (20), vitamin D status was categorized as deficient (<12 ng/mL 25(OH)D), inadequate (12-19.9 ng/mL), or adequate (≥20 ng/mL). Weighted kappa coefficients, calculated with Fleiss-Cohen weights, were used to compare the levels of agreement for categorical assignment between baseline and repeat samples (26).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, a recent influential report by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies has advocated calcium and vitamin D only for bone and musculoskeletal health (Institute of Medicine, 2010). The fallout from such a decision resonates in the detail of many invited opinions on this research document (Yngve et al, 2011).…”
mentioning
confidence: 91%