Side N
The Colour Is the Vitamin
Which sources back which section of this article, and what its evidence base looks like.
Which sources back which section
| Section | Sources behind it |
|---|---|
| What Happened | Zempleni and colleagues, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 63(1) (1996); the Institute of Medicine’s Dietary Reference Intakes, chapter 5 (1998); Schoenen, Jacquy and Lenaerts, Neurology 50(2) (1998); Northrop-Clewes and Thurnham, Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism 61(3) (2012); the encyclopaedic article on riboflavin |
| Timeline | All eight used sources. The disputed first date comes from Northrop-Clewes and Thurnham against the encyclopaedic article; the 1930s and the fortification count from the encyclopaedic article; 1996 from Zempleni and colleagues; 1998 from the Dietary Reference Intakes and from Schoenen’s randomised trial; 1994 from Schoenen’s pilot; 2013 from Yonezawa and Inui |
| The Argument | The Dietary Reference Intakes, for every quotation about absorption, storage, the missing upper limit and the reason for it; Zempleni and colleagues for the ceiling and the clearance; the encyclopaedic article for the pigment, the name and flavinuria; both Schoenen papers for the adverse events |
| What Others Add | Northrop-Clewes and Thurnham for why the search took so long and for the 1872 date; the encyclopaedic articles on riboflavin and on the B vitamins for the earlier names, the 1879 date and the numbering gaps; both Schoenen papers for the migraine trials; Yonezawa and Inui for the transporter names |
| Conclusion | The Dietary Reference Intakes; Zempleni and colleagues; the encyclopaedic article on riboflavin, for the fortification figures |
What the evidence base looks like
- 8Sources behind this article
- 3Read in full, at their own page — including the standards report the page leans on hardest
- 5Read at the published abstract, which states every figure taken from them
- 1Claim on the page that no source could be found for, and is marked as such wherever it appears
| What the source is | How many | How they were read |
|---|---|---|
| A standards body’s own consensus report on dietary requirements | 1 | Read in full at its own page, including the chapter section on upper intake levels. It is the source of most of what this article can state plainly, and of its central correction |
| Peer-reviewed papers: one pharmacokinetic study, two clinical trials, one historical review, one transporter review | 5 | All read at the published abstract, which states every figure and every quotation taken from them; none of the publishers’ full texts was obtained |
| Tertiary reference articles, continuously edited | 2 | Both read in full. One has an internally inconsistent history paragraph and the other’s relevant section carries a needs-more-citations notice; both facts are stated on the page rather than worked around |
Reliable
Reliable, but with an interestWorth believing and reliableWeak on both, and used with careHonest, but thin
Worth believing