4.7 Article

Public health implications of standardized 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels: A decrease in the prevalence of vitamin D deficiency among older women in Germany

期刊

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
卷 55, 期 3, 页码 228-232

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2012.06.010

关键词

Aging; Public Health; Vitamin D deficiency; Vitamin D measurement method; Women's health

资金

  1. State Ministry of Science, Research and Arts of Baden-Wurttemberg
  2. German Cancer Aid [108250]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective.To compare the public health implications of using unstandardized immunoassay measurements of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] concentrations versus using measurements standardized by liquid chromatography tandem-mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) when assessing the prevalence of 25(OH)D insufficiency and deficiency in various subgroups of individuals. Method.We standardized immunoassay-based measurements of 25(OH)D with LC-MS/MS in a population-based sample of 5386 women aged 50-74 recruited in.2000-2002 in Germany. We used multivariate regression to assess 25(OH)D determinants and the association of vitamin D deficiency with health status. Results.Prevalences of 25(OH)D levels <50 nmol/L (insufficiency) and <30 nmol/L (deficiency) decreased considerably by standardization. The decrease in vitamin D deficiency (from 64.4% to 17.9%) was particularly strong in March-May among women aged >= 65. Independent of season of blood draw and standardization, women >= 70 years, obese, or currently smoking had an increased risk of having 25(OH)D levels <30 nmol/L. Conclusion.The proportion of older women with vitamin D deficiency in Germany is much lower than previously reported, but prevalence of vitamin D insufficiency is high. Standardization of 25(OH)D values by immunoassay methods to LC-MS/MS equivalent values or direct measurement by LC-MS/MS is indispensable in drawing valid conclusions about the health implications of vitamin D deficiency or insufficiency. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据