The D-lemma: narrow-band UV type B radiation versus vitamin D supplementation versus sunlight for cardiovascular and immune health.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

1. The Role of Vitamin D in Reducing the Risk of Metabolic Disturbances That Cause Cardiovascular Diseases.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2023
   Review
2. Shedding Light on Vitamin D Status and Its Complexities during Pregnancy, Infancy and Childhood: An Australian Perspective.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019
   Article
3. Sex, Residence and Fish Intake Predict Vitamin D Status in Chinese Centenarians.The journal of nutrition, health & aging · 2019
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  A randomized clinical trial in vitamin D-deficient adults comparing replenishment with oral vitamin D2017

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as