ArticleJBMR plus2021
Vitamin D and Clinical Cancer Outcomes: A Review of Meta-Analyses.
Article in JBMR plus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
40 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 57 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Efficacy of vitamin DAgeing research reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Genetic Variants Associated With the Biochemical Response to Vitamin D3 in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis.The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism · 2025Trial
- Exercise without Weight Loss Prevents Seasonal Decline in Vitamin D Metabolites: The VitaDEx Randomized Controlled Trial.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025Trial
- Targeting Reactive Species Stress and Nutrient Sensing to Enhance NK-Cell Function: Mechanistic Strategies for Overcoming Pancreatic Cancer Progression and Resistance Through Supplement Therapy.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Vitamin D and Health: Establishing Causal Relationships Through Observational Evidence and Hill's Criteria in a Biological Framework.Nutrients · 2026Review
- Vitamin D lowers the number of intestinal tumours in adult intestine-specific Apc-mutant mice only during early tumour initiation in gestation and juvenility.Photochemical & photobiological sciences : Official journal of the European Photochemistry Association and the European Society for Photobiology · 2026Article
- Vitamin D and Health Outcomes: State-of-the-Art Review of Triangulated Evidence and Ongoing Controversies.Current nutrition reports · 2026Review
- Vitamin D Receptor in Cancer: Biological Functions, Mechanistic Insights, and Clinical Relevance.Cancer management and research · 2026Review
- Modulation of Peripheral Immune Cells Following Vitamin DNutrients · 2025Article
- Lifestyle-Based Approaches to Cancer Prevention and Treatment: Diet, Physical Activity, and Integrative Strategies.Pathophysiology : the official journal of the International Society for Pathophysiology · 2025Review
- The role of vitamin D in gastrointestinal cancer prevention and management: a narrative review.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Review
- Low Vitamin D and High Psychological Distress: Are They Associated with Poor Differentiation in Head and Neck Cancer?Clinics and practice · 2025Article
- Biochemical mechanisms and molecular interactions of vitamins in cancer therapy.Cancer pathogenesis and therapy · 2025Review
- Vitamin D deficiency, supplementation, and colorectal cancer outcomes: interactions with obesity and risk profiles.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
- Vitamin D3 reduces the viability of cancer cells in vitro and retard the EAC tumors growth in mice.PloS one · 2025Article
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
The relationship between vitamin D status or supplementation and cancer outcomes has been examined in several meta-analyses. To address remaining knowledge gaps, we conducted a systematic overview and critical appraisal of pertinent meta-analyses. For meta-analyses of trials, we assessed their quality using AMSTAR-2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews), strength of associations using umbrella review methodology and credibility of evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) criteria. Meta-analyses of observational studies reported inverse associations of 25OHD with risk of cancer incidence and cancer mortality and, particularly for colorectal cancer, fulfilled some of Bradford-Hill's causation criteria. In meta-analyses of trials, vitamin D supplementation did not affect cancer incidence. However, we found credible evidence that vitamin D supplementation reduced total cancer mortality risk, with five out of six meta-analyses reporting a relative risk (RR) reduction of up to 16%: RR, 0.84 (95% CI, 0.74-0.95). The strength of the association, however, was classified as weak. This was true among meta-analyses of high, moderate, and lower quality (AMSTAR-2-rated). Trials did not include large numbers of vitamin D-deficient participants; many tested relatively low doses and lacked sufficiently powered data on site-specific cancers. In conclusion, meta-analyses show that, although observational evidence indicates that low vitamin D status is associated with a higher risk of cancer outcomes, randomized trials show that vitamin D supplementation reduces total cancer mortality, but not cancer incidence. However, trials with larger proportions of vitamin D-insufficient participants and longer durations of follow-up, plus adequately powered data on site-specific common cancers, would provide further insight into the evidence base. © 2020 The Authors.
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.