Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32929196›Full record

SynthesisBritish journal of cancer2020

The effect of vitamin D supplementation on survival in patients with colorectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Peter G Vaughan-Shaw, Louis F Buijs, James P Blackmur, Evi Theodoratou, Lina Zgaga, Farhat V N Din, Susan M Farrington, Malcolm G Dunlop

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in British journal of cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
11.0field-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

64 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 105 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. Pooled it
  10. Effects of personalized vitamin DBritish journal of cancer · 2026
    Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

4 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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Peter G Vaughan-Shaw *MRC Human Genetics Unit, Institute of Genetics and Molecular Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Louis F Buijs *MRC Human Genetics Unit, Institute of Genetics and Molecular Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
James P BlackmurMRC Human Genetics Unit, Institute of Genetics and Molecular Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Evi TheodoratouCancer Research UK Edinburgh Centre, Institute of Genetics and Molecular Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Lina ZgagaDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Farhat V N DinMRC Human Genetics Unit, Institute of Genetics and Molecular Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Susan M Farrington *MRC Human Genetics Unit, Institute of Genetics and Molecular Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Malcolm G Dunlop *MRC Human Genetics Unit, Institute of Genetics and Molecular Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK. malcolm.dunlop@igmm.ed.ac.uk.
University of Edinburgh · GBEdinburgh Cancer Research · GBMRC Institute of Genetics and Molecular Medicine · GBTrinity College Dublin · IE

Funding

Cancer Research UK 12076Cancer Research UK 18927Cancer Research UK 22804Cancer Research UK C31250/A22804Cancer Research UK C348/A18927Medical Research Council MC_PC_U127527198Medical Research Council MC_U127527198Medical Research Council MC_UU_00007/1Medical Research Council MR/K018647/1Medical Research Council MR/M004007/1Medical Research Council U127527198Medical Research Council U127527202
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLow circulating vitamin D levels are associated with poor colorectal cancer (CRC) survival. We assess whether vitamin D supplementation improves CRC survival outcomes.

methodsPubMed and Web of Science were searched. Randomised controlled trial (RCTs) of vitamin D supplementation reporting CRC mortality were included. RCTs with high risk of bias were excluded from analysis. Random-effects meta-analysis models calculated estimates of survival benefit with supplementation. The review is registered on PROSPERO, registration number: CRD42020173397.

resultsSeven RCTs (n = 957 CRC cases) were identified: three trials included patients with CRC at outset, and four population trials reported survival in incident cases. Two RCTs were excluded from meta-analysis (high risk of bias; no hazard ratio (HR)). While trials varied in inclusion criteria, intervention dose and outcomes, meta-analysis found a 30% reduction in adverse CRC outcomes with supplementation (n = 815, HR = 0.70; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.48-0.93). A beneficial effect was seen in trials of CRC patients (progression-free survival, HR = 0.65; 95% CI: 0.36-0.94), with suggestive effect in incident CRC cases from population trials (CRC-specific survival, HR = 0.76; 95% CI: 0.39-1.13). No heterogeneity or publication bias was noted.

conclusionsMeta-analysis demonstrates a clinically meaningful benefit of vitamin D supplementation on CRC survival outcomes. Further well-designed, adequately powered RCTs are needed to fully evaluate benefit of supplementation in augmenting 'real-life' follow-up and adjuvant chemotherapy regimens, as well as determining optimal dosing.

Indexed as

Dietary SupplementsVitamin DColorectal NeoplasmsDisease ProgressionHumansVitamin D

Identifiers

PMID32929196
PMCPMC7686489
OpenAlexW3087522937

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.