Content Validity of a Short Calcium Intake List to Estimate Daily Dietary Calcium Intake of Patients with Osteoporosis

L. A. Rasch, M. A.E. de van der Schueren, L. H.D. van Tuyl, I. E.M. Bultink, J. H.M. de Vries, W. F. Lems

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Purpose: Calcium supplements are prescribed for prevention of osteoporotic fractures, but there is controversy whether excess of calcium intake is associated with cardiovascular events. While an accurate estimation of dietary calcium intake is a prerequisite to prescribe the adequate amount of supplementation, the most adequate tools for estimating intake are time-consuming. The aim of this study is to validate a short calcium intake list (SCaIL) that is feasible in daily clinical practice. Methods: Based on the food groups contributing most to daily dietary calcium intake and portion sizes determined in an earlier study, a three-item, 1-min SCaIL was designed. As a reference method, an extensive dietary history (DH) with specific focus on calcium-rich foods and extra attention for portion sizes was performed. Beforehand, a difference of ≥250 mg calcium between both methods was considered clinically relevant. Results: Sixty-six patients with either primary (n = 40) or secondary (n = 26) osteoporosis were included. On average, the SCaIL showed a small and clinically non-relevant difference in calcium intake with the DH: 24 ± 350 mg/day (1146 ± 440 vs. 1170 ± 485 mg, respectively; p = 0.568). Sensitivity and specificity of the SCaIL, compared to the DH, were 73 and 80%, respectively. However, in 50% of the individuals, a clinically relevant difference of ≥250 mg calcium was observed between both methods, while in 17% this was even ≥500 mg. Conclusions: The SCaIL is a quick and easy questionnaire to estimate dietary calcium intake at a group level, but is not sufficiently reliable for use in individual patients. Remarkably, the mean dietary calcium intake estimated by the DH of 1170 mg/day indicates that a large proportion of osteoporosis patients might not even need calcium supplementation, although more data are needed to confirm this finding.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)271-277
Number of pages7
JournalCalcified Tissue International
Volume100
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Mar 2017

Cite this

@article{492523d450294effaca0a9ef5bc1cc45,
title = "Content Validity of a Short Calcium Intake List to Estimate Daily Dietary Calcium Intake of Patients with Osteoporosis",
abstract = "Purpose: Calcium supplements are prescribed for prevention of osteoporotic fractures, but there is controversy whether excess of calcium intake is associated with cardiovascular events. While an accurate estimation of dietary calcium intake is a prerequisite to prescribe the adequate amount of supplementation, the most adequate tools for estimating intake are time-consuming. The aim of this study is to validate a short calcium intake list (SCaIL) that is feasible in daily clinical practice. Methods: Based on the food groups contributing most to daily dietary calcium intake and portion sizes determined in an earlier study, a three-item, 1-min SCaIL was designed. As a reference method, an extensive dietary history (DH) with specific focus on calcium-rich foods and extra attention for portion sizes was performed. Beforehand, a difference of ≥250 mg calcium between both methods was considered clinically relevant. Results: Sixty-six patients with either primary (n = 40) or secondary (n = 26) osteoporosis were included. On average, the SCaIL showed a small and clinically non-relevant difference in calcium intake with the DH: 24 ± 350 mg/day (1146 ± 440 vs. 1170 ± 485 mg, respectively; p = 0.568). Sensitivity and specificity of the SCaIL, compared to the DH, were 73 and 80{\%}, respectively. However, in 50{\%} of the individuals, a clinically relevant difference of ≥250 mg calcium was observed between both methods, while in 17{\%} this was even ≥500 mg. Conclusions: The SCaIL is a quick and easy questionnaire to estimate dietary calcium intake at a group level, but is not sufficiently reliable for use in individual patients. Remarkably, the mean dietary calcium intake estimated by the DH of 1170 mg/day indicates that a large proportion of osteoporosis patients might not even need calcium supplementation, although more data are needed to confirm this finding.",
keywords = "Calcium, Dietary history, Osteoporosis, Questionnaire, Supplementation, Validation",
author = "Rasch, {L. A.} and {de van der Schueren}, {M. A.E.} and {van Tuyl}, {L. H.D.} and Bultink, {I. E.M.} and {de Vries}, {J. H.M.} and Lems, {W. F.}",
year = "2017",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s00223-016-0221-8",
language = "English",
volume = "100",
pages = "271--277",
journal = "Calcified Tissue International",
issn = "0171-967X",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "3",

}

Content Validity of a Short Calcium Intake List to Estimate Daily Dietary Calcium Intake of Patients with Osteoporosis. / Rasch, L. A.; de van der Schueren, M. A.E.; van Tuyl, L. H.D.; Bultink, I. E.M.; de Vries, J. H.M.; Lems, W. F.

In: Calcified Tissue International, Vol. 100, No. 3, 01.03.2017, p. 271-277.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Content Validity of a Short Calcium Intake List to Estimate Daily Dietary Calcium Intake of Patients with Osteoporosis

AU - Rasch, L. A.

AU - de van der Schueren, M. A.E.

AU - van Tuyl, L. H.D.

AU - Bultink, I. E.M.

AU - de Vries, J. H.M.

AU - Lems, W. F.

PY - 2017/3/1

Y1 - 2017/3/1

N2 - Purpose: Calcium supplements are prescribed for prevention of osteoporotic fractures, but there is controversy whether excess of calcium intake is associated with cardiovascular events. While an accurate estimation of dietary calcium intake is a prerequisite to prescribe the adequate amount of supplementation, the most adequate tools for estimating intake are time-consuming. The aim of this study is to validate a short calcium intake list (SCaIL) that is feasible in daily clinical practice. Methods: Based on the food groups contributing most to daily dietary calcium intake and portion sizes determined in an earlier study, a three-item, 1-min SCaIL was designed. As a reference method, an extensive dietary history (DH) with specific focus on calcium-rich foods and extra attention for portion sizes was performed. Beforehand, a difference of ≥250 mg calcium between both methods was considered clinically relevant. Results: Sixty-six patients with either primary (n = 40) or secondary (n = 26) osteoporosis were included. On average, the SCaIL showed a small and clinically non-relevant difference in calcium intake with the DH: 24 ± 350 mg/day (1146 ± 440 vs. 1170 ± 485 mg, respectively; p = 0.568). Sensitivity and specificity of the SCaIL, compared to the DH, were 73 and 80%, respectively. However, in 50% of the individuals, a clinically relevant difference of ≥250 mg calcium was observed between both methods, while in 17% this was even ≥500 mg. Conclusions: The SCaIL is a quick and easy questionnaire to estimate dietary calcium intake at a group level, but is not sufficiently reliable for use in individual patients. Remarkably, the mean dietary calcium intake estimated by the DH of 1170 mg/day indicates that a large proportion of osteoporosis patients might not even need calcium supplementation, although more data are needed to confirm this finding.

AB - Purpose: Calcium supplements are prescribed for prevention of osteoporotic fractures, but there is controversy whether excess of calcium intake is associated with cardiovascular events. While an accurate estimation of dietary calcium intake is a prerequisite to prescribe the adequate amount of supplementation, the most adequate tools for estimating intake are time-consuming. The aim of this study is to validate a short calcium intake list (SCaIL) that is feasible in daily clinical practice. Methods: Based on the food groups contributing most to daily dietary calcium intake and portion sizes determined in an earlier study, a three-item, 1-min SCaIL was designed. As a reference method, an extensive dietary history (DH) with specific focus on calcium-rich foods and extra attention for portion sizes was performed. Beforehand, a difference of ≥250 mg calcium between both methods was considered clinically relevant. Results: Sixty-six patients with either primary (n = 40) or secondary (n = 26) osteoporosis were included. On average, the SCaIL showed a small and clinically non-relevant difference in calcium intake with the DH: 24 ± 350 mg/day (1146 ± 440 vs. 1170 ± 485 mg, respectively; p = 0.568). Sensitivity and specificity of the SCaIL, compared to the DH, were 73 and 80%, respectively. However, in 50% of the individuals, a clinically relevant difference of ≥250 mg calcium was observed between both methods, while in 17% this was even ≥500 mg. Conclusions: The SCaIL is a quick and easy questionnaire to estimate dietary calcium intake at a group level, but is not sufficiently reliable for use in individual patients. Remarkably, the mean dietary calcium intake estimated by the DH of 1170 mg/day indicates that a large proportion of osteoporosis patients might not even need calcium supplementation, although more data are needed to confirm this finding.

KW - Calcium

KW - Dietary history

KW - Osteoporosis

KW - Questionnaire

KW - Supplementation

KW - Validation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85009250619&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00223-016-0221-8

DO - 10.1007/s00223-016-0221-8

M3 - Article

VL - 100

SP - 271

EP - 277

JO - Calcified Tissue International

JF - Calcified Tissue International

SN - 0171-967X

IS - 3

ER -