TY - JOUR T1 - Methodological quality of recommendations on vitamin D and calcium – a systematic review of bone health guidelines JF - medRxiv DO - 10.1101/2021.05.01.21256288 SP - 2021.05.01.21256288 AU - Zhaoli Dai AU - Joanne E McKenzie AU - Sally McDonald AU - Liora Baram AU - Matthew J Page AU - Margaret Allman-Farinelli AU - David Raubenheimer AU - Lisa A. Bero Y1 - 2021/01/01 UR - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/05/04/2021.05.01.21256288.abstract N2 - There are numerous guidelines developed for bone health. Yet it is unclear the differences in guideline development methods explain the variability in recommendations for vitamin D and calcium intakes. The objective of this systematic review was to collate and compare recommendations for vitamin D and calcium across bone health guidelines, assess methods used to form the recommendations, and explore which methodological factors were associated with these guideline recommendations. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and other databases indexing guidelines to identify records in English between 2009 and 2019. Guidelines or policy statements on bone health or osteoporosis prevention for generally healthy adults aged ≥40 years were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently extracted recommendations on daily vitamin D and calcium intake, supplement use, serum 25 hydroxy vitamin D [25(OH)D] level, and sunlight exposure; assessed guideline development methods against 25 recommended criteria in the World Health Organization (WHO) Handbook for Guideline Development; and, identified types of evidence underpinning the recommendations. We included 47 eligible guidelines from 733 records: 74% of the guidelines provided vitamin D (200∼600-4000 IU/day) and 70% provided calcium (600-1200 mg/day) recommendations; 96% and 88% recommended vitamin D and calcium supplements, respectively; and 70% recommended a specific 25(OH)D concentration. The mean of meeting 25 WHO methodological criteria per guideline was 10 (95% CI: 9-12; interquartile range: 6-15). There was uncertainty in the associations between the methodological criteria and the proportion of guidelines that provided recommendations on daily vitamin D or calcium. Various types of evidence, ranging from previous bone guidelines, nutrient reference reports, systematic reviews, observational studies, to perspectives/editorials were used to underpin the recommendations. In conclusion, there is considerable variability in vitamin D and calcium recommendation and in guideline development methods in bone health guidelines. Effort is required to strengthen methodological rigor of guideline development and utilize the best available evidence to underpin public health nutrition.HighlightsThis systematic review provides evidence on the variabilities in vitamin D and calcium recommendations as well as guideline development methods in 47 bone health guidelines globally.Our findings point to continued effort to utilize the best available evidence to underpin nutrition recommendations and strengthen methodological rigor of guideline development in bone health guidelines.Registration of protocol PROSPERO: CRD42019126452Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical TrialNot applicableClinical Protocols https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/9/11/e031840.full.pdf Funding StatementZD and LB are funded by and LAB is supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) project grant APP1139997. JEM is supported by an Australian NHMRC Career Development Fellowship (1143429). MJP is supported by an Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Researcher Award (DE200101618). MAF is funded by the NHMRC and New South Wales Health and previously by Cancer Council NSW. SM is a PhD student funded by the Country Women Association (NSW) and Edna Winifred Blackman Postgraduate Research Scholarship.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:IRB is exempted as this is a systematic review of published guidelines or policy statements.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesThis is a systematic review including a comprehensive search strategy and references of included and excluded bone health guidelines/policy statements. This information is included in the supplemental materials.(AGREE) IIAppraisal of Guidelines for Research and EvaluationNHMRCthe Australian National Health and Medical Research CouncilCOIconflict of interestEARestimated average requirementIUinternational unitRDrisk differenceWHOWorld Health Organization[1, 25(OH)2D3]1,25-dihydroxycholecalciferol[25(OH)D]25-hydroxyvitamin-D ER -