ReviewJournal of endocrinological investigation2020
Vitamin D screening.
Review in Journal of endocrinological investigation, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rethinking Vitamin D Deficiency: Controversies and Practical Guidance for Clinical Management.Nutrients · 2025Review
- Prevalence and Progression of Vitamin D Deficiency in Greater Beirut and Mount Lebanon From 2013 to 2022: An Analysis of 19,452 Adults.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2025Article
- Vitamin D Measurement: Clinical Practice and Research Implications.The journal for nurse practitioners : JNP · 2023Article
- Lumbar spine bone mineral density and trabecular bone score-adjusted FRAX, but not FRAX without bone mineral density, identify subclinical carotid atherosclerosis.Journal of endocrinological investigation · 2021Article
- Vitamin D Boosts Alendronate Tail Effect on Bone Mineral Density in Postmenopausal Women with Osteoporosis.Nutrients · 2021Article
- Vitamin D, sport and health: a still unresolved clinical issue.Journal of endocrinological investigation · 2020Review
- 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
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
At present, there is no need and no sufficient evidence to support universal screening for vitamin D status. There are four categories of subjects in whom there is no requirement for screening, since a number of studies indicate beneficial effects of vitamin D supplementation; these are represented by children and adolescents, pregnant women, patients taking bone active drugs and subjects with documented hypovitaminosis D. In the remaining subjects, the utilization of adequate questionnaires will target with sufficient sensitivity and specificity those with hypovitaminosis D. These must be first supplemented and, at a later time, serum 25(OH)D assay should be requested to confirm attainment of sufficiency, independently of the threshold chosen. This strategy will cut costs deriving from both widespread use of vitamin D assays and vitamin D supplementation.
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.