Evidence mapPaperPMID 34360427Full record

ReviewInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021

Assessing Health Consequences of Vitamin D Fortification Utilizing a Societal Experiment Design: Methodological Lessons Learned from the D-Tect Project.

Mina Nicole Händel, Ramune Jacobsen, Fanney Thorsteinsdottir, Amélie Cléo Keller, Maria Stougaard, Camilla Bjørn Jensen, Caroline Moos, Katrine Sidenius Duus, Allan Jensen, Ulrik Schiøler Kesmodel and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 43% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Mina Nicole HändelResearch Unit for Dietary Studies, The Parker Institute, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-8256-8756
Ramune JacobsenDepartment of Pharmacy, University of Copenhagen, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-8142-9807
Fanney ThorsteinsdottirResearch Unit for Dietary Studies, The Parker Institute, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-3070-782X
Amélie Cléo KellerDepartment of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, 1014 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Maria StougaardCenter for Early Intervention and Family Studies, Department of Psychology, University of Copenhagen, 1353 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Camilla Bjørn JensenCenter for Clinical Research and Prevention, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark.
Caroline MoosResearch Unit for Dietary Studies, The Parker Institute, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-4997-4319
Katrine Sidenius DuusResearch Unit for Dietary Studies, The Parker Institute, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-1630-3132
Allan JensenLifestyle, Reproduction and Cancer, Danish Cancer Society Research Center, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Ulrik Schiøler KesmodelDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Aalborg University Hospital and Aalborg University, 9000 Aalborg, Denmark.
Bo AbrahamsenOpen Patient Explorative Network, Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, 5000 Odense, Denmark.
Berit Lilienthal HeitmannResearch Unit for Dietary Studies, The Parker Institute, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-6809-4504
Frederiksberg Hospital · DKUniversity of Copenhagen · DKAalborg University Hospital · DKDanish Cancer Society · DKUniversity of Southern Denmark · DK

Funding

Danish Diabetes Academy 00Lundbeckfonden R170-2014-643Oak Foundation OCAY-13-309Strategiske Forskningsråd 11-116213Syddansk Universitet 00
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

By utilizing historical changes in Danish legislation related to mandatory vitamin D fortification of margarine, which was implemented in the mid 1930s and abruptly abandoned in June 1985, the studies in the D-tect project investigated the effects of vitamin D on health outcomes in individuals, who during gestation were exposed or unexposed to extra vitamin D from fortified margarine. This paper reviews and narratively summarizes the analytic approaches alongside the results of the societal fortification experiment studies from the D-tect project and addresses the challenges in designing societal experiment studies and evaluating their results. The latter are discussed as lessons learned that may be useful for designers of similar studies, expected to be extensively utilized while researching the health consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic by comparing individuals born before and after the epidemic. In the D-tect project, 16 articles based on the societal fortification experiment were published analyzing 10 different outcomes and using different statistical approaches. Lessons learned included the detail of the analysis of the historical information on the exposure, availability and validity of the outcome data, variety of analytical approaches, and specifics concerning vitamin D effect evaluation, such as consideration of the influence of sunshine or season. In conclusion, the D-tect project clearly demonstrated the cost-effectiveness and research potential of natural- or societal-experiment-based studies.

Indexed as

COVID-19Vitamin DFood, FortifiedHumansPandemicsSARS-CoV-2Vitamin Dchronic diseasespregnancysemi-ecological studyvitamin D

Identifiers

PMID34360427
PMCPMC8345774
OpenAlexW3191012918

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.