ArticleSkeletal radiology2018
Prevalence of vitamin D insufficiency in radiologists: a cross-sectional study.
Article in Skeletal radiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Are you always working in the dark? The impact of limited daylight exposure on radiologists' health.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the prevalence of vitamin D insufficiency between radiologists and a control group of non-radiologists. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis prospective cross-sectional study was conducted at the Swiss Congress of Radiology in May of 2016. Attendees (radiologists and non-radiologists) were asked to give a venous blood sample to measure vitamin D (25-hydroxyvitamin D) blood serum level. Vitamin D insufficiency was defined as < 50 nmol/l (30 ng/ml). We collected information on profession, age, gender, vitamin D supplements, recent sunny vacation, and eating fish. We compared vitamin D between radiologists and non-radiologists.
resultsA total of 137 radiologists (mean age, 38 ± 10 years) and 164 non-radiologists (mean age, 40 ± 12 years) participated in the study. Prevalence of vitamin D insufficiency in both groups was similar (58.4% (80/137) vs. 53.7% (88/164); p = 0.240). Forty-three participants were under vitamin D supplementation. In those without supplementation, we found no difference in vitamin D between groups (44.0 ± 16.2 nmol/l (17.6 ± 6.5 ng/ml) vs. 44.4 ± 16.9 nmol/l (17.8 ± 6.8 ng/ml); p = 0.757). Average vitamin D levels for radiologists were slightly lower (-0.98 nmol/l (0.39 ng/ml), 95% confidence interval - 5.96 to 4.00 (- 2.38 to 1.6 ng/ml); p = 0.699), when adjusting for the potential confounders, but not statistically significant. The odds ratio of vitamin D insufficiency for radiologists versus non-radiologists was 1.7 (95% CI = 0.94-3.06; p = 0.078) after adjusting for the other independent variables.
conclusionsThe prevalence of vitamin D insufficiency in radiologists was high (58.4%), but not substantially higher than in non-radiologists.
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.