2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.clnesp.2022.03.034
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A validated screening tool correctly identifies the majority of pregnant women at high risk of vitamin D deficiency

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In an external validation study by Lamain-de Ruiter et al of twelve published models for predicting GDM, the ROC statistic of included studies ranged from 0.67 to 0.78 [ 46 ], which is comparable to our results. Previous screening tools during pregnancy intended to predict either a high risk for maternal vitamin D deficiency [ 47 ] or for caesarean delivery among women with GDM [ 48 ]. With respect to excessive GWG, only one study to date has examined nine psychological, physical, and social factors as risk factors for excessive GWG within a cross-validated prediction model in 970 women (AUC 0.62) [ 49 ], but without validating the results against an external study population or implementing them as part of a screening tool.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In an external validation study by Lamain-de Ruiter et al of twelve published models for predicting GDM, the ROC statistic of included studies ranged from 0.67 to 0.78 [ 46 ], which is comparable to our results. Previous screening tools during pregnancy intended to predict either a high risk for maternal vitamin D deficiency [ 47 ] or for caesarean delivery among women with GDM [ 48 ]. With respect to excessive GWG, only one study to date has examined nine psychological, physical, and social factors as risk factors for excessive GWG within a cross-validated prediction model in 970 women (AUC 0.62) [ 49 ], but without validating the results against an external study population or implementing them as part of a screening tool.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This finding led to the ratio of VE to lipid being used to clinically determine VE status [27][28][29][30][31][32][36][37][38] and also encouraged us to assess whether or not 25(OH)VD to total TG ratio is a better method in assessing vitamin D deficiency. Currently, vitamin D status is determined by quantifying circulating levels of 25(OH) vitamin D (25(OH)VD) per ml of serum or plasma [39][40][41][42]. To the authors' best knowledge, no previous study has examined if the ratio of serum 25(OH)VD to serum lipids is more efficient in determining vitamin D status compared to the current method and if the inverse relationship among vitamin D deficiency and high BMD in AA retires when measuring vitamin D levels as this ratio described.…”
Section: Rationale Behind the Use Of 25(oh)vd To Total Serum Tg Ratiomentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our First Novel Hypothesis: Could the Paradoxical Relationships Be Linked to Each Other? Currently, vitamin D status is determined by assessing circulating levels of [25(OH)D] per milliliter of serum or plasma [39][40][41][42]. To the best of our knowledge, no studies have examined whether measuring the ratio of serum vitamin D to serum lipids is more efficient in determining vitamin D status than the current method and whether the inverse relationship between vitamin D deficiency and high BMD in AA disappears when measuring vitamin D levels as this ratio described.…”
Section: Our First Novel Hypothesis: Could the Paradoxical Relationsh...mentioning
confidence: 99%