↓ Skip to main content

EURRECA—Estimating Vitamin D Requirements for Deriving Dietary Reference Values

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
EURRECA—Estimating Vitamin D Requirements for Deriving Dietary Reference Values
Published in
Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, January 2013
DOI 10.1080/10408398.2012.742862
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kevin D. Cashman, Mairead Kiely

Abstract

The time course of the EURRECA from 2008 to 2012, overlapped considerably with the timeframe of the process undertaken by the North American Institute of Medicine (IOM) to revise dietary reference intakes for vitamin D and calcium (published November 2010). Therefore the aims of the vitamin D-related activities in EURRECA were formulated to address knowledge requirements that would complement the activities undertaken by the IOM and provide additional resources for risk assessors and risk management agencies charged with the task of setting dietary reference values for vitamin D. A total of three systematic reviews were carried out. The first, which pre-dated the IOM review process, identified and evaluated existing and novel biomarkers of vitamin D status and confirmed that circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentrations is a robust and reliable marker of vitamin D status. The second systematic review conducted a meta-analysis of the dose-response of serum 25(OH)D to vitamin D intake from randomized controlled trials (RCT) among adults to explore the most appropriate model of the vitamin D intake-serum 25(OH)D) relationship to estimate requirements. The third review also carried out a meta-analysis to evaluate evidence of efficacy from RCT using foods fortified with vitamin D, and found they increased circulating 25(OH)D concentrations in a dose-dependent manner but identified a need for stronger data on the efficacy of vitamin D-fortified food on deficiency prevention and potential health outcomes, including adverse effects. Finally, narrative reviews provided estimates of the prevalence of inadequate intakes of vitamin D in adults and children from international dietary surveys, as well as a compilation of research requirements for vitamin D to inform current and future assessments of vitamin D requirements. [Supplementary materials are available for this article. Go to the publisher's onilne edition of Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrion for the following free supplemental files: Additional text, tables, and figures.].

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 3%
Unknown 63 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 15%
Researcher 10 15%
Other 9 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 14%
Professor 4 6%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 13 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 5%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Other 12 18%
Unknown 17 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 August 2013.
All research outputs
#17,693,152
of 22,716,996 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition
#1,798
of 2,346 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#210,203
of 280,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition
#49
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,716,996 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,346 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.3. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 280,757 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.