Skip to main content
PLOS Global Public Health logoLink to PLOS Global Public Health
. 2024 May 2;4(5):e0002519. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0002519

Egg consumption and bone mass density among the elderly: A scoping review

Mobolaji T Olagunju 1,#, Olunike R Abodunrin 1,#, Ifeoluwa O Omotoso 2,#, Ifeoluwa E Adewole 3,, Oluwabukola M Ola 3,, Chukwuemeka Abel 3,, Folahanmi T Akinsolu 3,4,*,#
Editor: Razak M Gyasi5
PMCID: PMC11065246  PMID: 38696440

Abstract

Eggs offer a range of essential nutrients that could support skeletal health as individuals age. Maintaining bone density is crucial for reducing the risk of fractures and improving overall mobility and quality of life in later years. Understanding the potential benefits of habitual egg consumption on bone mass density among older people is essential, given that the natural decline in bone mass density occurs with age. This area of research has not garnered sufficient attention basically because of the mixed reactions and conflicting reports about the safety of egg consumption especially among the older adults. This scoping review aims to systematically examine the existing literature to map the evidence regarding the association between habitual egg consumption and bone mass density in older adults’ individuals. The scoping review adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines to ensure methodological rigor and transparency. Five electronic databases were searched for published pieces of literature. While high egg intake has been linked to increased mortality and dyslipidemia, eggs contain compounds like Ovo transferrin and carotenoids that may benefit bone health. As aging increases vulnerability to bone fragility and fractures, it’s crucial to provide comprehensive dietary recommendations. The complex relationship between egg consumption, cholesterol, and health highlights the need for nuanced assessment. Overall, eggs present a potentially valuable dietary component for promoting bone health in aging populations. Limited research on the link between egg consumption and bone mass density in older adults highlights the need for further investigation. Concerns about cholesterol have overshadowed potential benefits. Given aging populations and bone health challenges, exploring eggs’ role in preventing falls and fractures is essential for a proactive approach to older adults’ well-being.

Introduction

Eggs are often considered nutritional powerhouses, and their potential contribution to bone health is increasingly recognized [1], attributed to the rich array of essential nutrients found in eggs that play pivotal roles in improving bone strength and overall skeletal well-being [2].

Firstly, eggs contain Vitamin D, a vital nutrient known for its role in calcium absorption. Calcium, in turn, is a cornerstone in bone mineralization and density [3]. Adequate Vitamin D intake ensures that the body’s calcium is effectively absorbed and utilized in bone-building, thus promoting bone health [4]. Furthermore, eggs are a source of Zinc, a mineral crucial in supporting bone formation and repair processes [5]. Zinc contributes to synthesizing collagen, a protein essential for maintaining bone structure and integrity. Its involvement in bone health has been highlighted in various studies [5].

Eggs also feature osteogenic bioactive components such as lutein and zeaxanthin. While these compounds are better known for their role in eye health and reducing the risk of age-related macular degeneration, their potential impact on bone health is emerging. By mitigating oxidative stress and inflammation, lutein and zeaxanthin may indirectly support overall health, including bone health [6,7].

It’s worth noting that previous research primarily focused on individual nutrient components of eggs, such as calcium [8], protein [9], and vitamin D [10] about bone health. These nutrients are critical for maintaining strong bones, and their presence in eggs underscores the potential benefits of egg consumption [3,4,810]. Historically, whole eggs have faced scrutiny due to their high cholesterol content, and concerns about their impact on cardiovascular health have been the subject of research [1114]. However, recent studies have challenged this notion, suggesting that moderate egg consumption may not significantly increase the risk of heart disease [13,14]. Yet, the specific associations between habitual egg consumption and bone health remain relatively uncharted in nutrition research.

Peak bone mass, reached in the third or fourth decade of life [7,15], is a critical foundation for skeletal health. However, as individuals age beyond this point, a consistent and natural decline in bone mass density impacts both women and men [15,16]. This age-related reduction in bone mass density plays a pivotal role in the increased susceptibility to vertebral fractures among the older adults’ population [34]. Understanding the factors that influence bone health during aging is paramount, and dietary habits are a contributing factor. Habitual egg consumption has emerged as a potential.

Dietary strategy to promote and maintain good bone health, particularly among older people [17]. The unique nutritional composition of eggs, including vital nutrients like Vitamin D, Zinc, and protein, may play a significant role in supporting bone density and minimizing age-related bone loss [18].

This scoping review aims to systematically examine the existing literature to map the evidence regarding the association between habitual egg consumption and bone mass density in older adults’ individuals. By synthesizing the available research, we can gain valuable insights into the potential benefits of including eggs as a dietary component in promoting skeletal health during aging.

Methodology

The scoping review adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines [19] to ensure methodological rigor and transparency.

Research question

The following inquiry steered the review:

What evidence exists regarding the association between egg consumption and bone mass density in older individuals?

Articles identification

The initial search was conducted in June 2023 on five electronic databases: Scopus, CINAHL, Web of Science, Medline, and PubMed. The search was performed using the following search strategies enumerated in Appendix (See S1 Appendix). No protocol was published for this review.

Eligibility criteria and article selection

The literature obtained through database searches was imported into Rayyan’s reference management software. Duplicates were removed using the "duplicate items" function. Three independent reviewers (OA, IO, and MT) conducted title and abstract screening, following the eligibility criteria set for this review. A full-text review of the remaining publications was then completed independently by five researchers (OA, IO, MT, BM, and FT). No attempts were made to contact authors or institutions to find additional sources. Any published manuscript presenting findings related to the association between egg consumption and bone mass density, English publications, and full texts available for extracting all relevant information were considered for study inclusion. The review included letters, reviews, observational studies, and experimental studies, while the exclusion criteria were books and grey literature publications and publications not in English.

Data charting

Information on the paper identifiers (title, author, link), the country, year of publication, the study aims, study design, study location, the quantity of egg consumption, frequency of egg consumption, reported impact and effect size were extracted from the publications included in this review. The extracted information from each publication was compiled and summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Characteristics of included studies.

S/N Title Author (year of publication) Study Aim Publication Type Gender distribution Study Participants
1 Relationship between osteoporosis, multiple fractures, and egg intake in healthy elderly Pujia et al. (2021) [20] The aim of this research is to explore and understand the potential correlation between the intake of eggs and the density of bones among elderly individuals. This investigation seeks to delve into how egg consumption might impact bone density within this specific demographic. Cross- sectional study The number of females included in the study was 112, while the number of males was 64. The participants were recruited between February 2013 and August 2016, and it was mentioned that this study constituted a secondary analysis of baseline data acquired from a study titled "Effect of the Mediterranean Diet on cognitive function in the elderly.
2 The association of red meat, poultry, and egg consumption with risk of hip fractures in elderly Chinese: A case–control study Zeng et al., (2013) [21] In order to investigate the potential connection between dietary consumption of various types of red meat, poultry (with or without skin), and eggs, and the likelihood of experiencing a hip fracture later on, a meticulously designed 1:1 matched case-control study was conducted. This study involved 646 pairs of elderly Chinese individuals hailing from Guangdong Province. The aim was to discern any associations between the mentioned dietary factors and the risk of hip fracture among this specific demographic group. Case- Control study The study comprised a total of 646 case patients and 646 matched control subjects, of which there were 484 female pairs and 162 male pairs. According to the report, the cases consisted of hip fracture patients who were consecutively admitted to four hospitals: the First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou Orthopedics Trauma Hospital, Guangdong General Hospital, and the Orthopedics Hospital of Baishi District in Jiangmen City, Guangdong province. It was mentioned that between June 2009 and January 2013, a total of 1281 patients aged 55 to 80, who had resided in Guangdong province for over 10 years, were admitted with hip fractures diagnosed within 2 weeks of their potential enrollment into the study and confirmed by X-ray image.
"The controls were individually matched to the cases based on sex and age. The inclusion and exclusion criteria for controls were the same as those for cases, except for a history of fracture. We had two sets of controls: 183 (28.3%) hospital controls who were in-patients admitted to the specified hospitals and Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center within one week and could be matched to the cases, and 463 (71.7%) community controls who were apparently healthy residents recruited from the same cities."

Results

The initial search using the predefined search terms from five databases yielded 315 studies. From the studies, 27 duplicates were removed, and the remaining 288 studies were screened. After screening, 283 studies were excluded because they did not meet the eligibility criteria. Five articles were sought for retrieval, of which three were excluded because two were studies on the impact of eggshell powder on bone mass among older people, and the last was a study conducted among children (Fig 1). Only two of the studies were included in the review. Table 1 shows the details of the included articles addressing the association between habitual egg consumption and bone mass density among older people.

Fig 1. Study flow chart.

Fig 1

Overview of studies

Table 2 shows the overview of the two included studies [20,21]. The study conducted by Pujia et al. (2022) [20] delves into the association between egg consumption and bone health, particularly whole-body bone mineral density (BMD) and the T-score, a key metric for diagnosing osteoporosis and assessing treatment effectiveness. In an aging population of 176 individuals aged 65 years and older, the researchers aimed to unravel the potential impact of egg consumption on bone density. Eggs were singled out due to their intriguing bioactive compounds, which might have positive implications for BMD. The study unearthed a statistically significant positive association between whole-body T-scores and egg consumption. Those who consumed more eggs exhibited higher T-scores, suggesting better bone density. Gender and body mass index (BMI) also influence bone health. Females had notably higher T-scores, and individuals with higher BMI tended to have better bone density. Intriguingly, multiple fractures were negatively associated with daily egg intake, implying that those who consumed more eggs were less prone to experiencing multiple fractures. HDL-C levels were linked positively with multiple fractures, indicating a potential role for cholesterol in bone health. This study provides novel insights into the relationship between egg consumption and bone health in older people. It suggests that whole eggs might positively impact bone density, potentially reducing the risk of osteoporosis and fractures in older individuals. However, the study’s cross-sectional nature limits its ability to establish causation and further research, ideally in the form of randomized controlled trials, is needed to confirm these findings. If substantiated, this study could pave the way for whole eggs as a viable dietary strategy for maintaining bone health in older people, addressing a crucial aspect of overall well-being in aging populations.

Table 2. Study findings.

S/N Title Author (Year of publication) Reported Quantity of Egg Consumed Frequen cy of Egg
Consumption
Reported effect on BMD Conclusion
1 Relationship between osteoporosis, multiple fractures, and egg intake in healthy elderly Pujia et al.
(2021) [20]
Approximately 56% of the participants in the study reported consuming between 1 to 5 eggs per week, with an average weekly intake of one egg. Weekly The WB T-score exhibited a positive correlation with daily egg consumption (r = 0.16; P = 0.027). Conversely, multiple fractures demonstrated a negative correlation with egg intake (r = -0.39; P = 0.014). In regression analysis, the WB T-score continued to show a positive association with egg intake (B = 0.02; P = 0.02). This cross-sectional study presents evidence supporting a positive association between whole egg consumption and whole-body bone mineral density (WB-BMD). If future randomized controlled trials confirm these findings, incorporating whole eggs into the diets of older adults could have a substantial public health impact, including potential benefits for osteoporosis prevention and reduced fracture risk.
2 The association of red meat, poultry, and egg consumption with risk of hip fractures in elderly Chinese: A case–control study Zeng et al.,
(2013) [21]
The average daily intake for men was 20.2 grams, while for women it was 22.6 grams per day. Daily There was no observed evidence indicating a correlation between egg consumption and the risk of hip fracture (OR = 0.99; 95% CI: 0.63, 1.56). This cross-sectional study presents evidence supporting a positive association between whole egg consumption and whole-body bone mineral density (WB-BMD). If future randomized controlled trials confirm these findings, incorporating whole eggs into the diets of older adults could have a substantial public health impact, including potential benefits for osteoporosis prevention and reduced fracture risk.

The research conducted by Zeng et al. (2013) [21] focused on exploring the potential link between the consumption of red meat, poultry (with or without skin), and eggs and the subsequent risk of hip fractures among older adult Chinese individuals. The study adopted a case–control design, with meticulous matching resulting in 646 pairs of participants from Guangdong Province, a coastal region in China. The study specifically targeted hip fractures, a significant concern among older people due to their impact on mobility and overall well-being. By investigating the dietary habits of these individuals, the researchers sought to identify any associations between food intake and hip fracture risk. The study’s results indicated that, on average, men consumed around 20.2 g/d of the examined foods, while women’s intake was slightly higher at 22.6 g/d. Upon analysis, the odds ratio (OR) for the risk of hip fracture about red meat, poultry, and eggs consumption was calculated at 0.99 (with a confidence interval of 0.63 to 1.56). This result suggests no conclusive evidence of a substantial association between egg consumption and the subsequent risk of hip fractures among the older adults’ participants. While the study’s findings do not indicate an egg consumption and hip fracture risk link, it is essential to consider the complexity of dietary patterns and potential confounding factors that may influence such outcomes. Overall, the research contributes to the ongoing discourse on nutrition and its impact on bone health, particularly in the context of the older adult population.

Discussion

The scoping review highlights that only two studies show the relationship between habitual egg consumption and elderlies’ bone fracture risk. Both studies had contradictory findings, though they used different study designs and had different study outcomes. This scoping review reveals a significant gap in the current literature regarding the potential correlation between regular egg consumption and bone mass density in the older adult population. The limited research highlights the necessity for additional investigation to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the potential causal relationship between these variables.

The limited number of primary studies investigating the relationship between egg consumption and bone health in older adults highlights a gap in research. This gap may be attributed to concerns about the cholesterol content in eggs and its potential association with an elevated risk of cardiovascular diseases. Notably, studies in Italy, Spain, and China have linked high egg consumption to an increased risk of overall mortality and mortality due to cancer [2224]. Yet the protein content of eggs, such as ovotransferrin, has bone-preserving proprieties through inhibition of the bone resorption process [25]. There is also suggestive evidence that carotenoids in egg yolk could prevent bone loss [26,27]. Egg consumption is also associated with dyslipidemia, a condition characterized by abnormal blood lipid levels. Eggs, a rich source of dietary cholesterol, have historically been of concern because of their impact on blood cholesterol levels. The relationship between egg consumption and dyslipidemia can vary among individuals and is influenced by genetics and overall diet [28,29].

As individuals age, the concern for bone health becomes more pronounced, given the heightened vulnerability to bone fragility. This increased susceptibility poses a significant risk of falls and fractures, with potentially severe consequences, particularly for the elderly population [17,30]. Recognizing this vulnerability, it becomes imperative to provide older people with comprehensive lifestyle and dietary recommendations that empower them to make informed choices to maintain their health and well-being [31]. Interestingly, emerging evidence suggests that eggs, often overlooked due to concerns about their cholesterol content, contain compounds that could contribute to bone development and enhance bone strength. Recognizing eggs’ potential role in bone health signifies the importance of considering them as a dietary component for the aging population. While the potential cardiovascular risks of consuming cholesterol-rich foods like eggs have garnered significant attention, the flip side of the coin reveals a more nuanced story. Recent research has highlighted that some cholesterol in eggs may possess.

Protective qualities against dyslipidemia, a condition characterized by abnormal levels of lipids in the blood, are intricately linked to cardiovascular health [32,33]. These contradictory findings emphasize the complexity of the relationship between egg consumption, cholesterol, and overall health, suggesting that a blanket assessment of eggs as detrimental may only partially be accurate [34].

In the broader context of bone health, eggs emerge as a potential source of nutrients that could contribute to maintaining bone density and reducing the risk of fractures among older people [35]. Being abundant in protein, eggs supply vital amino acids crucial for forming and maintaining the bone matrix [2]. Moreover, eggs serve as a natural reservoir of vitamin D, a crucial nutrient facilitating calcium absorption and bone mineralization. This distinctive nutritional profile positions eggs as a singular dietary choice that fulfills the nutritional needs for promoting bone health in aging individuals [36].

Addressing the current research gap concerning the relationship between egg consumption and bone mass density is essential for advancing our knowledge of bone health and advocating evidence-based dietary recommendations for older people. As the population ages, preserving mobility and reducing the risk of falls and fractures becomes increasingly paramount [31]. Therefore, adopting a comprehensive approach that includes dietary components like eggs, appropriate exercise, and other lifestyle adjustments could play a pivotal role in promoting healthier aging.

One of the strengths of this paper was assessing the effect of habitual egg consumption on bone mass density in a larger population than reported in a single study, which helps estimate effect size better and makes it easier to make recommendations to the broader population of older adults scientifically. One major limitation of the study is the absence of studies on the subject of discourse, which would provide an excellent way to dispel myths and fads surrounding the habitual consumption of eggs with sufficient scientific evidence on the subject across a wider population. Also, the study is limited in the uniformity of study design across the studies included.

In conclusion, the limited research exploring the potential link between regular egg consumption and bone mass density, especially among older people, highlights the necessity for more extensive investigation. The reluctance to delve into this relationship may partly stem from concerns regarding cholesterol content, which has historically overshadowed the potential health benefits of eggs. Nonetheless, considering the older adults population’s susceptibility to bone-related issues and the urgency of taking proactive measures to prevent falls and fractures, it becomes imperative to examine the potential contributions of eggs to bone health. As research advances, a balanced assessment of how eggs impact bone and cardiovascular health should guide dietary recommendations. This approach acknowledges the complexity of the nutritional composition of eggs and their potential role in enhancing the well-being of the aging population.

Conclusion

The existing literature on the relationship between habitual egg consumption and bone mass density among older individuals reveals a significant research gap, with only a limited number of studies exploring this crucial association. The hesitancy to delve into this relationship may stem from historical concerns about cholesterol content, overshadowing the potential health benefits of eggs. However, considering the heightened vulnerability of older adults to bone-related issues and the imperative of proactive measures to prevent falls and fractures, a comprehensive examination of the potential contributions of eggs to bone health is essential. As research advances, a balanced assessment considering the complexity of the nutritional composition of eggs should guide dietary recommendations for the aging population, acknowledging both potential benefits and risks.

Recommendation

Future research endeavors should focus on bridging the current gap in understanding the relationship between habitual egg consumption and bone health among older individuals. Given the conflicting reports and limited studies on this subject, a more extensive investigation with diverse study populations and standardized study designs is essential. This will contribute to dispelling myths and fads surrounding egg consumption and provide robust scientific evidence to inform dietary recommendations for the aging population. In addition to promoting bone health, further research can explore the broader implications of egg consumption on cardiovascular health in older individuals, ensuring a holistic understanding of the potential benefits and risks associated with incorporating eggs into the diet of the older adults.

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist.

(DOCX)

pgph.0002519.s001.docx (84.2KB, docx)
S1 Appendix. Search strategy and strings.

(DOCX)

pgph.0002519.s002.docx (20.1KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

We extend our heartfelt gratitude to Prof. Morenike Ukpong for her invaluable contribution in reviewing the manuscript. Her keen insights and rigorous evaluation significantly enhanced the quality and rigor of this work. Her expertise and constructive feedback were indispensable in refining our manuscript and advancing the discourse in this field.

Data Availability

Available in the manuscript

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Wu J. Eggs as functional foods and nutraceuticals for human health. Royal Society of Chemistry; 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Rizzoli R, Biver E, Brennan-Speranza TC. Nutritional intake and bone health. The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology 2021;9:606–21. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(21)00119-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Turner AG, Anderson PH, Morris HA. Vitamin D and bone health. Scandinavian Journal of Clinical and Laboratory Investigation 2012;72:65–72. doi: 10.3109/00365513.2012.681963 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Ebeling PR. Vitamin D and bone health: epidemiologic studies. BoneKEy Reports 2014;3. doi: 10.1038/bonekey.2014.6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Frassinetti S, Bronzetti GL, Caltavuturo L, Cini M, Della Croce C. The role of Zinc in life: a review. Journal of Environmental Pathology, Toxicology and Oncology 2006;25. doi: 10.1615/jenvironpatholtoxicoloncol.v25.i3.40 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Coheley LM, Kindler JM, Laing EM, Oshri A, Hill Gallant KM, Warden SJ, et al. Whole egg consumption and cortical bone in healthy children. Osteoporosis International 2018;29:1783–91. doi: 10.1007/s00198-018-4538-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Lu J, Shin Y, Yen M-S, Sun SS. Peak bone mass and patterns of change in total bone mineral density and bone mineral contents from childhood into young adulthood. Journal of Clinical Densitometry 2016;19:180–91. doi: 10.1016/j.jocd.2014.08.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Cashman K. Calcium intake, calcium bioavailability and bone health. British Journal of Nutrition 2002;87:S169–77. doi: 10.1079/BJNBJN/2002534 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Teucher B, Dainty JR, Spinks CA, Majsak-Newman G, Berry DJ, Hoogewerff JA, et al. Sodium and bone health: impact of moderately high and low salt intakes on calcium metabolism in postmenopausal women. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research 2008;23:1477–85. doi: 10.1359/jbmr.080408 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Winzenberg T, Jones G. Vitamin D and bone health in childhood and adolescence. Calcified Tissue International 2013;92:140–50. doi: 10.1007/s00223-012-9615-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Qin C, Lv J, Guo Y, Bian Z, Si J, Yang L, et al. Associations of egg consumption with cardiovascular disease in a cohort study of 0.5 million Chinese adults. Heart 2018;104:1756–63. doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2017-312651 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Guo J, Hobbs DA, Cockcroft JR, Elwood PC, Pickering JE, Lovegrove JA, et al. Association between egg consumption and cardiovascular disease events, diabetes and all-cause mortality. European Journal of Nutrition 2018;57:2943–52. doi: 10.1007/s00394-017-1566-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Krittanawong C, Narasimhan B, Wang Z, Virk HUH, Farrell AM, Zhang H, et al. Association between egg consumption and risk of cardiovascular outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The American Journal of Medicine 2021;134:76–83. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2020.05.046 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Zhang F, Li J, Chang C, Gu L, Xiong W, Su Y, et al. The Association of Dietary Cholesterol from Egg Consumption on Cardiovascular Diseases Risk Varies from Person to Person. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 2022;70:14977–88. doi: 10.1021/acs.jafc.2c04634 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Bonjour J-P, Chevalley T, Ferrari S, Rizzoli R. The importance and relevance of peak bone mass in the prevalence of osteoporosis. Salud Publica de Mexico 2009;51:s5–17. doi: 10.1590/s0036-36342009000700004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Curtis E, Litwic A, Cooper C, Dennison E. Determinants of muscle and bone aging. Journal of Cellular Physiology 2015;230:2618–25. doi: 10.1002/jcp.25001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Martin FC. Frailty, sarcopenia, falls and fractures. Orthogeriatrics 2017:47–61. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Martiniakova M, Babikova M, Mondockova V, Blahova J, Kovacova V, Omelka R. The role of macronutrients, micronutrients and flavonoid polyphenols in the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. Nutrients 2022;14:523. doi: 10.3390/nu14030523 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine 2018;169:467–73. doi: 10.7326/M18-0850 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Pujia R, Ferro Y, Maurotti S, Mare R, Arturi F, Montalcini T, et al. Relationship between Osteoporosis, Multiple Fractures, and Egg Intake in Healthy Elderly. J Midlife Health. 2021. Oct-Dec;12(4):287–293. doi: 10.4103/jmh.jmh_118_21 Epub 2022 Jan 20. ; PMCID: PMC8849143. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Zeng FF, Fan F, Xue WQ, Xie HL, Wu BH, Tu SL, et al. The association of red meat, poultry, and egg consumption with risk of hip fractures in elderly Chinese: a case-control study. Bone. 2013. Oct;56(2):242–8. doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2013.06.023 Epub 2013 Jun 29. . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Ruggiero E, Di Castelnuovo A, Costanzo S, Persichillo M, De Curtis A, Cerletti C, et al. Egg consumption and risk of all-cause and cause-specific mortality in an Italian adult population. Eur J Nutr 2021;60:3691–702. 10.1007/s00394-021-02536-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Zamora-Ros R, Cayssials V, Cleries R, Redondo ML, Sánchez M-J, Rodríguez-Barranco M, et al. Moderate egg consumption and all-cause and specific-cause mortality in the Spanish European Prospective into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC-Spain) study. Eur J Nutr 2019;58:2003–10. 10.1007/s00394-018-1754-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Xu L, Lam TH, Jiang CQ, Zhang WS, Zhu F, Jin YL, et al. Egg consumption and the risk of cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality: Guangzhou Biobank Cohort Study and meta- analyses. Eur J Nutr 2019;58:785–96. 10.1007/s00394-018-1692-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Shang N, Wu J. Egg white ovotransferrin attenuates RANKL-induced osteoclastogenesis and bone resorption. Nutrients 2019;11:2254. doi: 10.3390/nu11092254 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Miranda JM, Anton X, Redondo-Valbuena C, Roca-Saavedra P, Rodriguez JA, Lamas A, et al. Egg and egg-derived foods: effects on human health and use as functional foods. Nutrients 2015;7:706–29. doi: 10.3390/nu7010706 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.USDA F. Unites States Department of Agriculture Foreign Agricultural Service, Global Agricultural Trade System (GATS), Forest products trade statistics. Access: Http://Www Fas Usda Gov/Gats/Default Aspx 2011.
  • 28.Jacobson TA, Maki KC, Orringer CE, Jones PH, Kris-Etherton P, Sikand G, et al. National Lipid Association recommendations for patient-centered management of dyslipidemia: part 2. Journal of Clinical Lipidology 2015;9:S1–122. doi: 10.1016/j.jacl.2015.09.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Godos J, Micek A, Brzostek T, Toledo E, Iacoviello L, Astrup A, et al. Egg consumption and cardiovascular risk: a dose–response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. European Journal of Nutrition 2021;60:1833–62. doi: 10.1007/s00394-020-02345-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Aspray TJ, Hill TR. Osteoporosis and the Ageing Skeleton. In: Harris JR, Korolchuk VI, editors. Biochemistry and Cell Biology of Ageing: Part II Clinical Science, Singapore: Springer; 2019, p. 453–76. 10.1007/978-981-13-3681-2_16. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Izquierdo M, Merchant RA, Morley JE, Anker SD, Aprahamian I, Arai H, et al. International exercise recommendations in older adults (ICFSR): expert consensus guidelines. The Journal of Nutrition, Health & Aging 2021;25:824–53. doi: 10.1007/s12603-021-1665-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Thomas MS, Calle M, Fernandez ML. Healthy plant-based diets improve dyslipidemias, insulin resistance, and inflammation in metabolic syndrome. A narrative review. Advances in Nutrition 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.advnut.2022.10.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Pereira T. Dyslipidemia and cardiovascular risk: lipid ratios as risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Dyslipidemia-From Prevention to Treatment 2012;14:279–302. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Charoenngam N, Shirvani A, Holick MF. Vitamin D for skeletal and non-skeletal health: What we should know. Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics and Trauma 2019;10:1082–93. doi: 10.1016/j.jcot.2019.07.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Fratoni V, Brandi ML. B vitamins, homocysteine and bone health. Nutrients 2015;7:2176–92. doi: 10.3390/nu7042176 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Puglisi MJ, Fernandez ML. The Health Benefits of Egg Protein. Nutrients. 2022. Jul 15;14(14):2904. doi: 10.3390/nu14142904 ; PMCID: PMC9316657. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
PLOS Glob Public Health. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0002519.r001

Decision Letter 0

Razak M Gyasi

20 Dec 2023

PGPH-D-23-01926

Egg Consumption and Bone Mass Density among the Elderly: A Scoping Review

PLOS Global Public Health

Dear Dr. Akinsolu,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Global Public Health. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

The comments from our expert reviewers are very critical and you are entreated to respond to each of it adequately and revise the manuscript accordingly. Please, any changes to the original manuscript MUST be clearly HIGHLIGHTED in Yellow. Refusal to do this will either delay the progress of your manuscript or reject it.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 03 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at globalpubhealth@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pgph/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Professor Razak M Gyasi, PhD, PD

Academic Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

Journal Requirements:

1. Please provide separate figure files in .tif or .eps format only and remove any figures embedded in your manuscript file. Please also ensure all files are under our size limit of 10MB.

For more information about figure files please see our guidelines:

https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/s/figures 

https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/s/figures#loc-file-requirement

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Partly

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Global Public Health does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is an interesting paper that is somewhat speculative. Most of its value is in offering a hypothesis that egg consumption should be more closely examined as protective of bone health, based on what we know about egg nutritional composition.

Reviewing 280+ research studies and then finding that only two directly investigate connections between bone health and egg consumption, is a bit strange, especially since as far as I can tell, the Guangdong study did not find a clear relationship (did it separately examine effects of red meat consumption versus egg consumption?). The other study was not a controlled study and causation is difficult to isolate. So all that the literature review really tells us is that no high quality study of the role of egg consumption in protecting bone health has been done. I hope that the authors are themselves working on a study to investigate this question, and would rather support publication of this data, followed by their contribution to answering this question with carefully designed research. However, I can also appreciate the contribution that a literature review makes.

At the very end of the paper, there is a paragraph on p. 11 that seems overly congratulatory.

--""One of the strengths of this paper was assessing the effect of habitual bone consumption on bone mass density in a larger population than reported in a single study, which helps estimate effect size better and makes it easier to make recommendations to the broader population of older adults scientifically." :

First, there is a major typo here: "habitual BONE consumption"!?

Second, actually, I don't find that you have effectively assessed the effect of egg consumption. I don't think either study is valid enough to really estimate effect size. Also, two papers is admittedly more than one, but it's not much larger - so don't overexaggerate the significance here.

"One major limitation of the study is the dearth of studies on the subject of discourse,

which would provide an excellent way to dispel myths and fads surrounding the habitual

consumption of eggs with sufficient scientific evidence on the subject across a wider population.

Also, the study is limited in the uniformity of study design across the studies included."

--It appears that your goal is to dispel myths and fads, which seems a bit inappropriate given the limited evidence. I would add that the study is limited in that clear causality is not demonstrated in either study, and moreover, that a thorough research on the topic has yet to be carried out.

All in all, an interesting study that is yet very limited in its ability to draw conclusions, but could lay helpful groundwork for future research.

Reviewer #2: Some what the articles were clear, correct, and unambiguous. Some grammatical errors were found along with significant plagiarism. Although plagiarism was found, I think it below 25%. So, the author should be able to paraphrase to solve existing paraphrases.

Reviewer #3: The manuscript titled "Egg Consumption and Bone Mass Density among Older Adults: A Scoping Review" provides a comprehensive exploration of the relationship between egg consumption and bone health in the aging population. Several critical points have been identified for improvement:

Language Refinement:

To ensure appropriateness in language, the term "elferly" throughout the manuscript should be replaced with "older adults." This adjustment contributes to the professionalism and clarity of the text.

Structural Enhancement:

The summary currently emphasizes the information filtering process, which is more aligned with the methodology. To enhance clarity, it is recommended to shift the primary focus of the summary to the key findings discovered during the review. This modification ensures that the most significant outcomes are prominently featured in the results section.

Reference Completion:

Line 71 indicates an incomplete reference. To maintain the scholarly integrity of the manuscript, it is essential to provide the necessary information and complete the reference accurately.

Avoiding Plagiarism:

Several instances throughout the manuscript involve verbatim use of text from the original references, which poses a risk of plagiarism. To address this concern, it is imperative to rephrase and paraphrase these sections, ensuring that the content is in the author's own words while appropriately citing the sources.

Registration Justification:

Even though the manuscript is a review, it is crucial to provide a justification for the absence of a registration. Explaining the rationale behind this decision will enhance transparency and help address any concerns related to research accountability.

Addressing these points will contribute to the overall quality, clarity, and integrity of the manuscript, ensuring it meets the highest standards of academic writing.

Reviewer #4: A good focus on the critical nutrient source (eggs) and effects on bones especially in older persons. the methods were good despite not getting enough papers for review. indicate that interpretation should be with caution.

following this review, the authors might consider a systematic review on the same topic to see of there is a wider scope of publications on the same topic, the authors have suggested the need for more studies, however, a systematic and or meta-analysis might also be useful

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Ok, I will not do that.

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PGPH-D-23-01926_reviewer ( New).docx

pgph.0002519.s003.docx (154.5KB, docx)
PLOS Glob Public Health. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0002519.r003

Decision Letter 1

Razak M Gyasi

5 Mar 2024

PGPH-D-23-01926R1

Egg Consumption and Bone Mass Density among the Elderly: A Scoping Review

PLOS Global Public Health

Dear Dr. Akinsolu,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Global Public Health. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Our reviewer who is an expert in the field has raised very critical concerns regarding the similarity index of the paper which has also been noted by the editorial team. Please, work on the draft to make sure these issues and other pointed out are fully addressed. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 04 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at globalpubhealth@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pgph/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Prof Razak M Gyasi, PhD, PD

Academic Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #3: Partly

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Global Public Health does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #3: Thank you for making the modifications to the manuscript. Its quality has improved. However, I believe some pertinent modifications are still required.

Firstly, regarding the similarity analysis; excluding the published preprint, it is important to focus on the information presented in tables 1 and 2, as the objectives, conclusions, and other data are exactly like those in the cited article. I recommend condensing the information and avoiding the use of the same text as in the cited documents.

Secondly, concerning the abstract, the results section can focus solely on the findings of this article. There is no need for a summary of the method; instead, the essence of the analysis findings is required.

I appreciate your attention to these matters.

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLOS Glob Public Health. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0002519.r005

Decision Letter 2

Razak M Gyasi

10 Apr 2024

Egg Consumption and Bone Mass Density among the Elderly: A Scoping Review

PGPH-D-23-01926R2

Dear Dr. Akinsolu,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Egg Consumption and Bone Mass Density among the Elderly: A Scoping Review' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Global Public Health.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact globalpubhealth@plos.org.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Global Public Health.

Best regards,

Razak M Gyasi, PhD, PD

Academic Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

***********************************************************

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Global Public Health does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #3: Thank you very much for addressing all the recommendations made to the manuscript. I consider that you have fulfilled the requested guidelines. Congratulations

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #3: No

**********

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Checklist. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist.

    (DOCX)

    pgph.0002519.s001.docx (84.2KB, docx)
    S1 Appendix. Search strategy and strings.

    (DOCX)

    pgph.0002519.s002.docx (20.1KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PGPH-D-23-01926_reviewer ( New).docx

    pgph.0002519.s003.docx (154.5KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reviewer #4.docx

    pgph.0002519.s004.docx (12.3KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reviewer #3.docx

    pgph.0002519.s005.docx (15KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    Available in the manuscript


    Articles from PLOS Global Public Health are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES