Thomas Dietrich

Bio: Thomas Dietrich is an academic researcher from University of Birmingham. The author has contributed to research in topics: Periodontitis & Population. The author has an hindex of 55, co-authored 185 publications receiving 15546 citations. Previous affiliations of Thomas Dietrich include Technische Universität Ilmenau & Humboldt University of Berlin.

Fracture Prevention With Vitamin D Supplementation: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Abstract: ContextThe role and dose of oral vitamin D supplementation in nonvertebral fracture prevention have not been well established.ObjectiveTo estimate the effectiveness of vitamin D supplementation in preventing hip and nonvertebral fractures in older persons.Data SourcesA systematic review of English and non-English articles using MEDLINE and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (1960-2005), and EMBASE (1991-2005). Additional studies were identified by contacting clinical experts and searching bibliographies and abstracts presented at the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (1995-2004). Search terms included randomized controlled trial (RCT), controlled clinical trial, random allocation,double-blind method, cholecalciferol,ergocalciferol,25-hydroxyvitamin D, fractures, humans, elderly, falls, and bone density.Study SelectionOnly double-blind RCTs of oral vitamin D supplementation (cholecalciferol, ergocalciferol) with or without calcium supplementation vs calcium supplementation or placebo in older persons (≥60 years) that examined hip or nonvertebral fractures were included.Data ExtractionIndependent extraction of articles by 2 authors using predefined data fields, including study quality indicators.Data SynthesisAll pooled analyses were based on random-effects models. Five RCTs for hip fracture (n = 9294) and 7 RCTs for nonvertebral fracture risk (n = 9820) met our inclusion criteria. All trials used cholecalciferol. Heterogeneity among studies for both hip and nonvertebral fracture prevention was observed, which disappeared after pooling RCTs with low-dose (400 IU/d) and higher-dose vitamin D (700-800 IU/d), separately. A vitamin D dose of 700 to 800 IU/d reduced the relative risk (RR) of hip fracture by 26% (3 RCTs with 5572 persons; pooled RR, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61-0.88) and any nonvertebral fracture by 23% (5 RCTs with 6098 persons; pooled RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.68-0.87) vs calcium or placebo. No significant benefit was observed for RCTs with 400 IU/d vitamin D (2 RCTs with 3722 persons; pooled RR for hip fracture, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.88-1.50; and pooled RR for any nonvertebral fracture, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.86-1.24).ConclusionsOral vitamin D supplementation between 700 to 800 IU/d appears to reduce the risk of hip and any nonvertebral fractures in ambulatory or institutionalized elderly persons. An oral vitamin D dose of 400 IU/d is not sufficient for fracture prevention.

Periodontitis: Consensus report of workgroup 2 of the 2017 World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri-Implant Diseases and Conditions.

Abstract: A new periodontitis classification scheme has been adopted, in which forms of the disease previously recognized as "chronic" or "aggressive" are now grouped under a single category ("periodontitis") and are further characterized based on a multi-dimensional staging and grading system. Staging is largely dependent upon the severity of disease at presentation as well as on the complexity of disease management, while grading provides supplemental information about biological features of the disease including a history-based analysis of the rate of periodontitis progression; assessment of the risk for further progression; analysis of possible poor outcomes of treatment; and assessment of the risk that the disease or its treatment may negatively affect the general health of the patient. Necrotizing periodontal diseases, whose characteristic clinical phenotype includes typical features (papilla necrosis, bleeding, and pain) and are associated with host immune response impairments, remain a distinct periodontitis category. Endodontic-periodontal lesions, defined by a pathological communication between the pulpal and periodontal tissues at a given tooth, occur in either an acute or a chronic form, and are classified according to signs and symptoms that have direct impact on their prognosis and treatment. Periodontal abscesses are defined as acute lesions characterized by localized accumulation of pus within the gingival wall of the periodontal pocket/sulcus, rapid tissue destruction and are associated with risk for systemic dissemination.

The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration

Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration

Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, are not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (quality of reporting of meta-analysis) statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realising these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this explanation and elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA statement, this document, and the associated website (www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Vitamin D Deficiency

Abstract: Once foods in the United States were fortified with vitamin D, rickets appeared to have been conquered, and many considered major health problems from vitamin D deficiency resolved. But vitamin D deficiency is common. This review considers the role of vitamin D in skeletal and nonskeletal health and suggests strategies for the prevention and treatment of vitamin D deficiency.