Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24374742›Full record

SynthesisEuropean journal of epidemiology2014

Vitamin D and high blood pressure: causal association or epiphenomenon?

Setor K Kunutsor, Stephen Burgess, Patricia B Munroe, Hassan Khan

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European journal of epidemiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 74 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
74citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
8.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

74 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 143 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Observational
  19. Review
  20. Article

14 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Setor K KunutsorDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB1 8RN, UK, skk31@cantab.net.
Stephen Burgess
Patricia B Munroe
Hassan Khan
University of Cambridge · GBQueen Mary University of London · GB

Funding

British Heart Foundation RG/08/014/24067Medical Research Council MR/L003120/1Wellcome Trust 100114
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

High plasma levels of vitamin D are associated with a reduced risk of high blood pressure, but whether this association is causal remains to be ascertained. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials, to examine the effect of vitamin D supplementation on both systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and supplemented these results with a Mendelian randomization analysis to investigate the causal relationship between vitamin D status (25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D]) and BP. Pooled random effects meta-analysis of weighted mean differences across 16 trials of vitamin D supplementation showed a non-significant reduction in SBP (-0.94, 95% CI -2.98, 1.10 mmHg) and DBP (-0.52, 95% CI -1.18, 0.14 mmHg), with evidence of heterogeneity (I(2) = 67.9%, P < 0.001) and publication bias (P = 0.02) among trials of SBP. There was a significant reduction in DBP (-1.31, 95% CI -2.28, -0.34 mmHg, P = 0.01) in participants with pre-existing cardiometabolic disease. Variants at three published loci (GC, DHCR7, CYP2R1, and CYP24A1) for 25(OH)D, were not significantly associated with BP, but rs6013897 in CYP24A1 gene region had nominally significant associations with both SBP and DBP (P < 0.05). Evidence from the associations of the genetic variants with the risk of vitamin D deficiency (defined as a 25(OH)D level < 50 nmol/L) and BP showed that the causal effects of a doubling of genetically-elevated risk of vitamin D deficiency were 0.14 mmHg (95% CI -0.19, 0.47, P = 0.42), and 0.12 mmHg (95% CI -0.09, 0.33, P = 0.25) on SBP and DBP respectively. Additional evidence from genetic data are directionally consistent with clinical trial data, though underpowered to reliably demonstrate a strong causal effect of vitamin D status on BP. Further investigation may be warranted.

Indexed as

Dietary SupplementsMendelian Randomization AnalysisBlood PressureFemaleHumansHypertensionMalePolymorphism, Single NucleotideRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicVitamin DVitamin D

Identifiers

PMID24374742
OpenAlexW1972306678

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.