ReviewJBMR plus2021
Health Effects of Calcium: Evidence From Mendelian Randomization Studies.
Review in JBMR plus, 2021. 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, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Management of postmenopausal osteoporosis.Endocrine reviews · 2026Review
- Examining macro and micronutrient intakes in the Sri Lankan twin cohort: validation of subjective biomarkers from the COTASS-3 study.BMC nutrition · 2026Article
- An interpretable nomogram for predicting early acute postoperative hypocalcemia in differentiated thyroid cancer: development and internal validation.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
- The Association of Mixed Mineral Intake Exposure With Gout: A National Cross-Sectional National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) Study.Food science & nutrition · 2025Article
- Bee Brood as a Food for Human Consumption: An Integrative Review of Phytochemical and Nutritional Composition.Insects · 2025Review
- Calcium Supplementation- Efficacy and Safety.Current osteoporosis reports · 2025Review
- Inverted U-shaped association between total testosterone with bone mineral density in men over 60 years old.BMC endocrine disorders · 2024Article
- Cardiovascular Impact of Calcium and Vitamin D Supplements: A Narrative Review.Endocrinology and metabolism (Seoul, Korea) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Calcium is widely used in conjunction with vitamin D to prevent osteoporosis. The use of calcium supplementation is also promoted for its potential benefits in lowering the risk for metabolic syndromes and cancers. However, the causal link between calcium and various health outcomes remains unclear. This review focuses on the evidence from 24 Mendelian randomization (MR) studies that were designed to minimize bias from confounding and reverse causation. These MR studies evaluated the effect of lifelong genetically higher serum calcium levels on various health outcomes. Overall, available MR studies found no conclusive effects of serum calcium levels on bone mineral density and fracture, ischemic stroke and heart failure, cancers, type 2 diabetes, Parkinson disease, or offspring birth weight. However, a higher serum calcium concentration was reported to have estimated causal effects on increased risks for coronary artery disease (especially myocardial infarction), migraine, renal colic, allergy/adverse effect of penicillin, and reduced risks for osteoarthrosis and osteoarthritis. In conclusion, supplementation of calcium in individuals from the general population is not predicted to influence the risk of most investigated diseases to date. Moreover, long-term high serum calcium concentrations may result in adverse health outcomes. © 2021 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.