Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30650061›Full record

ReviewEndocrine connections2019

Vitamin D testing and treatment: a narrative review of current evidence.

Stefan Pilz, Armin Zittermann, Christian Trummer, Verena Theiler-Schwetz, Elisabeth Lerchbaum, Martin H Keppel, Martin R Grübler, Winfried März, Marlene Pandis

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Endocrine connections, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 131 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
131citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
23.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

131 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 260 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Vitamins DFrontiers in immunology · 2022
    Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

71 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Stefan PilzDivision of Endocrinology and Diabetology, Department of Internal Medicine, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Armin ZittermannClinic for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Herz- und Diabeteszentrum NRW, Ruhr University Bochum, Bad Oeynhausen, Germany.
Christian TrummerDivision of Endocrinology and Diabetology, Department of Internal Medicine, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Verena Theiler-SchwetzDivision of Endocrinology and Diabetology, Department of Internal Medicine, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Elisabeth LerchbaumDivision of Endocrinology and Diabetology, Department of Internal Medicine, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Martin H KeppelUniversity Institute for Medical and Chemical Laboratory Diagnostics, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria.
Martin R GrüblerDepartment of Cardiology, Swiss Cardiovascular Center Bern, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Winfried MärzClinical Institute of Medical and Chemical Laboratory Diagnostics, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Marlene PandisDivision of Endocrinology and Diabetology, Department of Internal Medicine, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Medical University of Graz · ATHeart and Diabetes Center North Rhine-Westphalia · DEParacelsus Medical University · ATUniversity of Bern · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Vitamin D testing and treatment is a subject of controversial scientific discussions, and it is challenging to navigate through the expanding vitamin D literature with heterogeneous and partially opposed opinions and recommendations. In this narrative review, we aim to provide an update on vitamin D guidelines and the current evidence on the role of vitamin D for human health with its subsequent implications for patient care and public health issues. Vitamin D is critical for bone and mineral metabolism, and it is established that vitamin D deficiency can cause rickets and osteomalacia. While many guidelines recommend target serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) concentrations of ≥50 nmol/L (20 ng/mL), the minimum consensus in the scientific community is that serum 25(OH)D concentrations below 25-30 nmol/L (10-12 ng/mL) must be prevented and treated. Using this latter threshold of serum 25(OH)D concentrations, it has been documented that there is a high worldwide prevalence of vitamin D deficiency that may require public health actions such as vitamin D food fortification. On the other hand, there is also reason for concern that an exploding rate of vitamin D testing and supplementation increases costs and might potentially be harmful. In the scientific debate on vitamin D, we should consider that nutrient trials differ from drug trials and that apart from the opposed positions regarding indications for vitamin D treatment we still have to better characterize the precise role of vitamin D for human health.

Indexed as

evidence-based medicineguidelinerecommendationvitamin D

Identifiers

PMID30650061
PMCPMC6365669
OpenAlexW2910301785

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.