EAL

NSUP: Vitamin B12 (2008)

Citation:

Study Design:

Class:

- Click here for explanation of classification scheme.

Quality Rating:

Research Purpose:

To determine the relationships of vitamin B₁, B₁₂, folate and the cognitive ability of the Thai rural elderly
To determine the prevalence of vitamin B₁, B₁₂, folate deficiency within the Thai rural elderly.

Inclusion Criteria:

Elderly (over the age of 60 years old)
Independent
Free-living
Attending the geriatric day centers for the purpose of health promotion and socialization.

Exclusion Criteria:

Not described.

Description of Study Protocol:

Recruitment: From three different geriatric day care centers in Ratchaburi and Samut Songkhram province
Design: Cross-sectional, comparison study
Blinding used: N/A.

Intervention

This is a cross-sectional, comparison study of 203 free-living men and women, aged 60 to 87 years old
All participants were asked to give blood samples. These samples were tested for various vitamin levels to identify any deficiencies and compare them to the TSM scores.
The Thai Mental Status Exam scores were used to categorize subjects into one of two groups: Normal cognition (greater than 23 on TMSE) or poor cognition (23 or less on TMSE).

Statistical Analysis

Means with standard error
Chi-squared test
Student’s T-test
Mann-Whitney U-test.

Data Collection Summary:

Timing of Measurements

The following data was collected at one time (cross-sectional study design):

Serum folate, red cell
Serum cyanocobalamin
Serum Thiaminpyrophosphate (TPP).

Dependent Variables

Vitamin B levels.

Independent Variables

TMS score.

Description of Actual Data Sample:

Initial N: 203 (80 males, 123 females)
- Normal cognition: 61 males, 19 females
- Poor cognition: 19 males, 44 females.
Attrition: Not described
Age
- Normal cognition group: 67.9±5.8 years
- Poor cognition group: 72.4±7.5 years.
Ethnicity: Not described
Anthropometrics: Not described
Location: From three different geriatric day care centers in Ratchaburi and Samut Songkhram province, near Bangkok.

Summary of Results:

There was no significant differences in any of the three vitamin levels and the elderly, with both normal and abnormal cognition (as determined by the TMSE).

Author Conclusion:

This study concluded that there was no significant differences in any of the three vitamin levels and the elderly with both normal and abnormal cognition, as determined by the TMSE. However, the prevalence of thiamin deficiency was identified at approximately 30% within the healthy Thai elderly population, which is quite high, when compared to western countries reflecting a poorer intake of thiamin-rich food.

Funding Source:

University/Hospital:

Siriraj Hospital-Mahidol University

Reviewer Comments:

No statistical significance identified
No description of exclusion criteria
Limited presentation of demographic data
No power calculation presented
No description of diet composition.

Quality Criteria Checklist: Primary Research
Relevance Questions
	1.	Would implementing the studied intervention or procedure (if found successful) result in improved outcomes for the patients/clients/population group? (Not Applicable for some epidemiological studies)	Yes
	2.	Did the authors study an outcome (dependent variable) or topic that the patients/clients/population group would care about?	Yes
	3.	Is the focus of the intervention or procedure (independent variable) or topic of study a common issue of concern to dieteticspractice?	Yes
	4.	Is the intervention or procedure feasible? (NA for some epidemiological studies)	Yes

Validity Questions
1.	Was the research question clearly stated?		N/A
	1.1.	Was (were) the specific intervention(s) or procedure(s) [independent variable(s)] identified?	Yes
	1.2.	Was (were) the outcome(s) [dependent variable(s)] clearly indicated?	Yes
	1.3.	Were the target population and setting specified?	Yes
2.	Was the selection of study subjects/patients free from bias?		No
	2.1.	Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified (e.g., risk, point in disease progression, diagnostic or prognosis criteria), and with sufficient detail and without omitting criteria critical to the study?	???
	2.2.	Were criteria applied equally to all study groups?	Yes
	2.3.	Were health, demographics, and other characteristics of subjects described?	No
	2.4.	Were the subjects/patients a representative sample of the relevant population?	No
3.	Were study groups comparable?		Yes
	3.1.	Was the method of assigning subjects/patients to groups described and unbiased? (Method of randomization identified if RCT)	Yes
	3.2.	Were distribution of disease status, prognostic factors, and other factors (e.g., demographics) similar across study groups at baseline?	N/A
	3.3.	Were concurrent controls or comparisons used? (Concurrent preferred over historical control or comparison groups.)	Yes
	3.4.	If cohort study or cross-sectional study, were groups comparable on important confounding factors and/or were preexisting differences accounted for by using appropriate adjustments in statistical analysis?	N/A
	3.5.	If case control study, were potential confounding factors comparable for cases and controls? (If case series or trial with subjects serving as own control, this criterion is not applicable.)	N/A
	3.6.	If diagnostic test, was there an independent blind comparison with an appropriate reference standard (e.g., "gold standard")?	N/A
4.	Was method of handling withdrawals described?		N/A
	4.1.	Were follow-up methods described and the same for all groups?	N/A
	4.2.	Was the number, characteristics of withdrawals (i.e., dropouts, lost to follow up, attrition rate) and/or response rate (cross-sectional studies) described for each group? (Follow up goal for a strong study is 80%.)	N/A
	4.3.	Were all enrolled subjects/patients (in the original sample) accounted for?	Yes
	4.4.	Were reasons for withdrawals similar across groups?	N/A
	4.5.	If diagnostic test, was decision to perform reference test not dependent on results of test under study?	N/A
5.	Was blinding used to prevent introduction of bias?		N/A
	5.1.	In intervention study, were subjects, clinicians/practitioners, and investigators blinded to treatment group, as appropriate?	N/A
	5.2.	Were data collectors blinded for outcomes assessment? (If outcome is measured using an objective test, such as a lab value, this criterion is assumed to be met.)	N/A
	5.3.	In cohort study or cross-sectional study, were measurements of outcomes and risk factors blinded?	N/A
	5.4.	In case control study, was case definition explicit and case ascertainment not influenced by exposure status?	N/A
	5.5.	In diagnostic study, were test results blinded to patient history and other test results?	N/A
6.	Were intervention/therapeutic regimens/exposure factor or procedure and any comparison(s) described in detail? Were interveningfactors described?		N/A
	6.1.	In RCT or other intervention trial, were protocols described for all regimens studied?	N/A
	6.2.	In observational study, were interventions, study settings, and clinicians/provider described?	N/A
	6.3.	Was the intensity and duration of the intervention or exposure factor sufficient to produce a meaningful effect?	N/A
	6.4.	Was the amount of exposure and, if relevant, subject/patient compliance measured?	N/A
	6.5.	Were co-interventions (e.g., ancillary treatments, other therapies) described?	N/A
	6.6.	Were extra or unplanned treatments described?	N/A
	6.7.	Was the information for 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6 assessed the same way for all groups?	N/A
	6.8.	In diagnostic study, were details of test administration and replication sufficient?	N/A
7.	Were outcomes clearly defined and the measurements valid and reliable?		Yes
	7.1.	Were primary and secondary endpoints described and relevant to the question?	Yes
	7.2.	Were nutrition measures appropriate to question and outcomes of concern?	Yes
	7.3.	Was the period of follow-up long enough for important outcome(s) to occur?	N/A
	7.4.	Were the observations and measurements based on standard, valid, and reliable data collection instruments/tests/procedures?	Yes
	7.5.	Was the measurement of effect at an appropriate level of precision?	Yes
	7.6.	Were other factors accounted for (measured) that could affect outcomes?	Yes
	7.7.	Were the measurements conducted consistently across groups?	Yes
8.	Was the statistical analysis appropriate for the study design and type of outcome indicators?		Yes
	8.1.	Were statistical analyses adequately described and the results reported appropriately?	Yes
	8.2.	Were correct statistical tests used and assumptions of test not violated?	Yes
	8.3.	Were statistics reported with levels of significance and/or confidence intervals?	Yes
	8.4.	Was "intent to treat" analysis of outcomes done (and as appropriate, was there an analysis of outcomes for those maximally exposed or a dose-response analysis)?	N/A
	8.5.	Were adequate adjustments made for effects of confounding factors that might have affected the outcomes (e.g., multivariate analyses)?	N/A
	8.6.	Was clinical significance as well as statistical significance reported?	No
	8.7.	If negative findings, was a power calculation reported to address type 2 error?	N/A
9.	Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration?		Yes
	9.1.	Is there a discussion of findings?	Yes
	9.2.	Are biases and study limitations identified and discussed?	Yes
10.	Is bias due to study's funding or sponsorship unlikely?		Yes
	10.1.	Were sources of funding and investigators' affiliations described?	Yes
	10.2.	Was the study free from apparent conflict of interest?	Yes