Systematic review to support the development of nutrient reference intake values: Challenges and solutions

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

Volumn 92, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 273-276

  Chung, Mei ^a,c   Balk, Ethan M ^a   Ip, Stanley ^a   Lee, Jounghee ^a   Terasawa, Teruhiko ^a   Raman, Gowri ^a   Trikalinos, Thomas ^a   Lichtenstein, Alice H ^a,b,c   Lau, Joseph ^a,c  

^a TUFTS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b TUFTS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c TUFTS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CALCIUM; VITAMIN D; TRACE ELEMENT;

DECISION MAKING; DIETARY INTAKE; DIETARY REFERENCE INTAKE; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; HUMAN; NUTRIENT; QUALITY CONTROL; REFERENCE VALUE; REVIEW; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION; ARTICLE; CANADA; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH CARE POLICY; LITERATURE; UNITED STATES;

CALCIUM; CANADA; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; MICRONUTRIENTS; NUTRITION POLICY; REFERENCE VALUES; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC; UNITED STATES; VITAMIN D;

EID: 77955474523     PISSN: 00029165     EISSN: 19383207     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3945/ajcn.2009.29092     Document Type: Review

References (11)

1. Russell RM. Current framework for DRI development: what are the pros and cons? Nutr Rev 2008;66:455-8.
2. Institute of Medicine. The development of DRIs 1994-2004: lessons learned and new challenges - workshop summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2008.
3. Chung M, Balk EM, Brendel M, et al. Vitamin D and calcium: a systematic review of health outcomes. Evidence report no. 183. (Prepared by the Tufts Evidence-based Practice Center under contract no. HHSA 290-2007-10055-I.) Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2009. Available from: http://www.ahrq.gov/downloads/ pub/evidence/pdf/vitadcal/vitadcal.pdf (cited 22 April 2010). (AHRQ publication no. 09-E105.)
4. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Methods reference guide for effectiveness and comparative effectiveness reviews, version 1.0. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2007. Available from: http:// effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/repFiles/ 2007-10DraftMethodsGuide.pdf (cited 22 April 2010).
5. Lichtenstein AH, Yetley EA, Lau J. Application of systematic review methodology to the field of nutrition. J Nutr 2008;138:2297-306.
6. NRC (National Research Council). Recommended Dietary Allowance. Reprint and Circular Series No. 115. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1941, 52 pp.
7. Whitlock EP, Lin JS, Chou R, Shekelle P, Robinson KA. Using existing systematic reviews in complex systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med 2008;148:776-82. (Pubitemid 351717420)
8. White CM, Ip S, McPheeters M, et al. Using existing systematic reviews to replace de novo processes in conducting comparative effectiveness reviews. In: Methods guide for comparative effectiveness reviews. October 2009. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Available from: http://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/ ehc/products/123/329/ SystematicReviewsReplaceDeNovo.pdf (cited 22 April 2010).
9. Wald NJ, Morris JK. Teleoanalysis: combining data from different types of study. BMJ 2003;327:616-8.
10. Ades AE, Welton NJ, Caldwell D, Price M, Goubar A, Lu G. Multi-parameter evidence synthesis in epidemiology and medical decisionmaking. J Health Serv Res Policy 2008;13:12-22.
11. Eddy DM, Hasselblad V, Shachter R. A Bayesian method for synthesizing evidence. The Confidence Profile Method. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1990;6:31-55. (Pubitemid 20287160)