ArticleJournal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)2014
Controversy regarding the association of high calcium intake and increased risk for cardiovascular disease.
Article in Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Clinical outcomes and safety of combined calcitriol and bisphosphonates in treating postmenopausal osteoporosis: a retrospective cohort study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- Risk of Ischemic Stroke Associated with Calcium Supplements and Interaction with Oral Bisphosphonates: A Nested Case-Control Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Mineral Balance and Metabolic Syndrome in Adolescents: Focus on Calcium and Phosphorus Intake.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Calcium Intake and Serum Calcium Level in Relation to the Risk of Ischemic Stroke: Findings from the REGARDS Study.Journal of stroke · 2019Article
- Impact and risk factors of post-stroke bone fracture.World journal of experimental medicine · 2016Article
- Bone health in type 1 diabetes: focus on evaluation and treatment in clinical practice.Journal of endocrinological investigation · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Calcium intake has been shown to be associated with beneficial effects regarding hypertension, coronary heart disease (CHD), vascular disease, and stroke by several prospective cohort studies. However, recent studies have questioned the beneficial cardiovascular effects of calcium intake and instead have shown that high calcium intake is associated with an increased risk for CHD and stroke. These findings have created controversy and concern among physicians, because calcium is consumed by a large number of older men and women to prevent osteoporosis and bone fractures. Based on the methods of patient self-reporting of calcium intake and cardiovascular events, the conclusions drawn from the studies may not be entirely valid. Therefore, until more confirmatory data are available, physicians should not be dissuaded from prescribing calcium supplements to their patients. The best candidates are patients with low calcium intake, but their calcium supplementation should not exceed the recommended 1200 mg/d to 1500 mg/d.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.