ReviewNutrients2017
Vitamin D: Moving Forward to Address Emerging Science.
Review in Nutrients, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Global Trends in Vitamin D Research From 1985 to 2024.PRiMER (Leawood, Kan.) · 2025Article
- Nutraceuticals and Their Contribution to Preventing Noncommunicable Diseases.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Evaluation of the safety, tolerability and plasma vitamin D response to long-term use of patented transdermal vitamin D patches in healthy adults: a randomised parallel pilot study.BMJ nutrition, prevention & health · 2022Article
- Perspective: Appraisal of the Evidence Base to Update DRI Values-Lessons from the Past, Thoughts for the Future.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2022Article
- Potential roles of vitamin D binding protein in attenuating liver injury in sepsis.Military Medical Research · 2022Article
- Association between Changes in Serum 25-Hydroxyvitamin D Levels and Survival in Patients with Breast Cancer Receiving Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy.Journal of breast cancer · 2018Article
- Continued Interest and Controversy: Vitamin D in HIV.Current HIV/AIDS reports · 2018Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The science surrounding vitamin D presents both challenges and opportunities. Although many uncertainties are associated with the understandings concerning vitamin D, including its physiological function, the effects of excessive intake, and its role in health, it is at the same time a major interest in the research and health communities. The approach to evaluating and interpreting the available evidence about vitamin D should be founded on the quality of the data and on the conclusions that take into account the totality of the evidence. In addition, these activities can be used to identify critical data gaps and to help structure future research. The Office of Dietary Supplements (ODS) at the National Institutes of Health has as part of its mission the goal of supporting research and dialogues for topics with uncertain data, including vitamin D. This review considers vitamin D in the context of systematically addressing the uncertainty and in identifying research needs through the filter of the work of ODS. The focus includes the role of systematic reviews, activities that encompass considerations of the totality of the evidence, and collaborative activities to clarify unknowns or to fix methodological problems, as well as a case study using the relationship between cancer and vitamin 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.