MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297370149 · doi:10.3389/fnut.2022.984423

Evaluation of the clinical practice guidelines and consensuses on calcium and vitamin D supplementation in healthy children using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument and Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare statement

2022· review· en· W4297370149 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lanzhi He, Pengxiang Zhou, Xin Zhou, Tian Shuxia, Jing Han, Suodi Zhai

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Nutrition · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineChecklistGuidelineVitamin D and neurologyFamily medicineMEDLINEPsychologyInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: This study aimed to assess the methodological and reporting quality of the guidelines and consensus on calcium and vitamin D supplementation in healthy children, and the consistency of these recommendations. Methods: A systematic search of relevant guideline websites and databases, including PubMed, Embase, CNKI, WangFang, and SinoMed, was undertaken from inception to April 7, 2021, by two independent reviewers who assessed the eligible guidelines using the validated Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation Instrument II (AGREE II) and the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) tools. Overall, the between-reviewer agreement was evaluated using an intra-class correlation coefficient. Results: A total of 24 guidelines and consensuses from 2002 to 2022 were identified from China, the United States, Canada, France, Australia, New Zealand, Europe, and other countries and regions. These were of mixed quality, and scored poorly in the rigor of development, editorial independence, and applicability of the domains of AGREE II. Among the seven domains of the RIGHT checklist, domain one (basic information) had the highest reporting rate (69.3%), whereas domain five (review and quality assurance) had the lowest reporting rate (11.5%). The overall quality of the included guidelines and consensuses was low. Only 12 guidelines were recommended, with modifications. The recommended calcium intake for children of different ages varies greatly (400-1,150 mg/day). Among the included guidelines and consensuses, a vitamin D (VD) prevention dose of 400 IU/day in infants was generally considered safe, and 25-hydroxyvitamin-D [25(OH)D] levels of <20 ng/mL (50 nmol/L) or 20-30 ng/mL (50-75 nmol/L) indicated VD deficiency or insufficiency. However, the recommended amount of VD for children of different age groups and risk strata differed considerably (400-4,000 IU/day or 10-100 μg/day). The choice of VD2 or VD3 supplements and sunlight exposure also differed across the guidelines and consensuses. Conclusion: There is considerable variability in calcium and VD guidelines and consensus development methods in calcium and VD supplementation for healthy children. Therefore, efforts are necessary to strengthen the methodological rigor of guideline development and utilize the best available evidence to underpin recommendations.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.514
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.707
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.486
Threshold uncertainty score0.599

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5140.707
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.007
Bibliometrics0.0310.022
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0060.007
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.857
GPT teacher head0.722
Teacher spread0.134 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
DomainEvaluation
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NutritionSame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207