| Title |
Examination of iodine status in the German population: an example for methodological pitfalls of the current approach of iodine status assessment
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Nutrition, June 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00394-015-0941-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
S. A. Johner, M. Thamm, R. Schmitz, T. Remer |
| Abstract |
Preliminary iodine concentration (UIC) measurements in spot urines of the representative German adult study DEGS indicated a severe worsening of iodine status compared to previous results in German children (KiGGS study). Therefore, we aimed to evaluate adult iodine status in detail and to investigate the impact of hydration status on UIC. UIC and creatinine concentrations were measured in 6978 spot urines from the German nationwide DEGS study (2008-2011). Twenty-four-hour iodine excretions (24-h UIE) were estimated by relating iodine/creatinine ratios to age- and sex-specific 24-h creatinine reference values. Urine osmolality was measured in two subsamples of spot urines (n = 100 each) to determine the impact of hydration status on UIC. In DEGS, median UIC was 69 µg/L in men and 54 µg/L in women, lying clearly below the WHO cutoff for iodine sufficiency (100 µg/L). Estimated median 24-h UIE was 113 µg/day, accompanied by 32 % of DEGS adults, lying below the estimated average requirement (EAR) for iodine. Comparative analysis with the KiGGS data (>14,000 spot urines of children; median UIC 117 µg/L) revealed a comparable percentage <EAR (33 %). In two DEGS subsamples with significantly different UIC but similar median 24-h UIE, osmolality was twofold higher in the high- versus the low-UIC group. Over 30 % of participants in the two German surveys had an estimated iodine intake less than the respective age-group-specific EAR. Our data strongly suggest that even in large surveys, hydration status can considerably interfere with the epidemiological iodine assessment parameter UIC. The present data can serve as an example how to evaluate population-based spot urine data on a 24-h basis, independent of hydration status. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 39 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 21% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Researcher | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 15% |
| Unknown | 8 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 28% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 15% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 8% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 11 | 28% |
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 22 October 2015.
All research outputs
#15,348,897
of 22,830,751 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Nutrition
#1,717
of 2,394 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,220
of 267,726 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Nutrition
#40
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,830,751 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,394 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 267,726 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.