Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29116314›Full record

ReviewSao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina

What do Cochrane systematic reviews say about interventions for vitamin D supplementation?

Mariana Vendramin Mateussi, Carolina de Oliveira Cruz Latorraca, Júlia Pozetti Daou, Ana Luiza Cabrera Martimbianco, Rachel Riera, Rafael Leite Pacheco, Daniela Vianna Pachito

Open access · diamondFull text readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. The role of vitamin D in perinatology. An up-to-date review.Archives of medical science : AMS · 2021
    Article
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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mariana Vendramin MateussiUndergraduate Medical Student, Escola Paulista de Medicina - Universidade Federal de São Paulo (EPM-Unifesp), São Paulo (SP), Brazil.
Carolina de Oliveira Cruz LatorracaMSc. Psychologist and Postgraduate Student, Postgraduate Evidence-Based Health Program, Universidade Federal de São Paulo (Unifesp), and Assistant Researcher, Cochrane Brazil, São Paulo (SP), Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9146-4684
Júlia Pozetti DaouUndergraduate Medical Student, Escola Paulista de Medicina - Universidade Federal de São Paulo (EPM-Unifesp), São Paulo (SP), Brazil.
Ana Luiza Cabrera MartimbiancoMSc, PhD. Physical Therapist and Assistant Researcher, Cochrane Brazil, São Paulo (SP), Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4361-4526
Rachel RieraMD, MSc, PhD. Rheumatologist and Adjunct Professor, Discipline of Evidence-Based Medicine, Escola Paulista de Medicina - Universidade Federal de São Paulo (EPM-Unifesp); Assistant Coordinator, Cochrane Brazil, São Paulo (SP), Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9522-1871
Rafael Leite PachecoUndergraduate Medical Student, Escola Paulista de Medicina - Universidade Federal de São Paulo (EPM-Unifesp), São Paulo (SP), Brazil.
Daniela Vianna PachitoMD, MSc. Neurologist and Postgraduate Student, Postgraduate Evidence-Based Health Program, Universidade Federal de São Paulo (Unifesp), and Assistant Researcher, Cochrane Brazil, São Paulo (SP), Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7052-7735
Cochrane · BRUniversidade Federal de São Paulo · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

CONTEXT AND

objectiveDespite the high prevalence of vitamin D supplementation, its use remains controversial. The objective of this review was to identify and summarize the evidence from Cochrane systematic reviews regarding vitamin D supplementation for preventing ortreating any clinical condition. DESIGN AND

settingReview of systematic reviews, conducted in the Discipline of Evidence-Based Medicine, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo.

methodsA search was conducted to identify all Cochrane systematic reviews that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Titles and abstracts were screened by two authors.

resultsWe included 27 Cochrane systematic reviews: 10 assessing use of vitamin D for prevention and 17 for treatment. The reviews found moderate to high quality of evidence regarding the benefit of vitamin D for pregnant women (prevention of adverse events: preterm birth risk [rate ratio, RR 0.36; 95% confidence interval, CI 0.14 to 0.93] and low birthweight risk [RR 0.40; 95% CI 0.24 to 0.67]) and for asthma patients (reduction of severe exacerbations [RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.88]). No benefit was found regarding vitamin D supplementation alone (without calcium) for preventing hip or any new fracture. For all other outcomes assessed under various conditions, the current quality of evidence is low or unknown, and therefore insufficient for any recommendation.

conclusionBased on moderate to high quality of evidence, the Cochrane systematic reviews included here showed that there were some benefits from vitamin D supplementation for pregnant women and asthma patients and no benefits for preventing fractures.

Indexed as

Dietary SupplementsEvidence-Based MedicineReview Literature as TopicVitamin D DeficiencyFractures, BoneHumansVitamin DVitaminsVitamin DVitamins

Identifiers

PMID29116314
PMCPMC10027242
OpenAlexW2766347581

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read48
identifiers read29
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.