ReviewBMC neurology2016
Iranian consensus on use of vitamin D in patients with multiple sclerosis.
Review in BMC neurology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Deep learning-based neuroanatomical profiling reveals population-specific brain changes in multiple sclerosis: a large-scale Middle Eastern study.BMC medical imaging · 2026Observational
- Serum Vitamin D3 as a Potential Biomarker for Neuronal Damage in Smoldering Multiple Sclerosis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Can Vitamin D Reduce Inflammation? The Influence of Supplementation on Selected Immunological Markers.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 11 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccumulating evidences from experimental, epidemiologic and clinical studies support the potential linkage between poor vitamin D status and the risk of developing Multiple Sclerosis (MS), as well as, an adverse disease course. However, the results of the trials on the clinical outcomes of vitamin D supplementation in MS patients are less consistent which brought many discrepancies in routine practice. In this article we presented a summary of a symposium on vitamin D and MS. In this symposium we aim to review the current data about the relationship between vitamin D and MS, and suggest management guides for practicing neurologists. DISCUSSION: Generally, supplementation seems to be reasonable for all MS and clinically isolated syndrome (Rinaldi et al., Toxins 7:129-37, 2015) patients with serum 25(OH)D level below 40 ng/ml. In patients with vitamin D insufficiency or deficiency, a large replacing dose (e.g. 50,000 IU capsules of D per week for 8-12 week) is recommended. Panel also suggested: the checking of the serum vitamin D, and calcium level, as well as, patients' compliance after the initial phase; a maintenance treatment of 1500-2000 IU daily or equivalent intermittent (weekly, biweekly or monthly) Dose, considering the patient's compliance; routine check of serum vitamin D level at least two times a year especially at the beginning of spring and autumn; Serum vitamin D evaluation for first degree relatives of MS patients at high risk age and supplementation in case of insufficiency (25(OH)D less than 40 ng/ml); correction of vitamin D deficiency and insufficiency before pregnancy, as well as, a daily dose of 1500-2000 IU or equivalent biweekly intake in 2nd and 3rd trimesters; stopping supplementation if 25(OH)D serum level exceeds 100 ng/ml. Although the results of high power studies are not available, correcting vitamin D status seems plausible in all MS and CIS patients. Maintaining the serum 25(OH)D level between 40 and 100 ng/ml is not known to exert adverse effect. More ever, it might be associated with lower disease activity.
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.