ReviewCurrent opinion in cardiology2019
Vitamin D supplements and prevention of cardiovascular disease.
Review in Current opinion in cardiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Vitamin D3 Enhances Endothelial Function and Improves Vascular Reactivity in an Experimental Model of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Rats.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Vitamin D Levels in Black Americans and the Association With Left Ventricular Remodeling and Incident Heart Failure With Preserved Ejectin Fraction: The Jackson Heart Study.Journal of cardiac failure · 2023Article
- Economic evaluation of a national vitamin D supplementation program among Iranian adolescents for the prevention of adulthood type 2 diabetes mellitus.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2022Article
- Does the High Prevalence of Vitamin D Deficiency in African Americans Contribute to Health Disparities?Nutrients · 2021Review
- Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purpose of reviewThe role of vitamin D supplementation for prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) outcomes has been rigorously studied only recently. This review briefly summarizes results from recent randomized controlled trials in the context of prior laboratory and epidemiologic data. RECENT
findingsRandomized trials of vitamin D that included CVD outcomes, as well as two recently published large population-based trials that prespecified CVD as a primary endpoint (The Vitamin D Assessmentand The VITamin D and OmegA-3 TriaL), indicate that vitamin D supplementation does not decrease CVD incidence, when compared with placebo. SUMMARY: Evidence to date suggests that vitamin D supplementation in the general community does not reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events. Other trials are ongoing and future studies will explore additional CVD outcomes such as heart failure and assess high-risk populations such as those with chronic kidney disease.
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.