Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34950828›Full record

ArticleJBMR plus2021

Vitamin D: Bolus Is Bogus-A Narrative Review.

Richard B Mazess, Heike A Bischoff-Ferrari, Bess Dawson-Hughes

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 47 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
10.2field-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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 86 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Guideline
  3. Efficacy of vitamin DAgeing research reviews · 2023
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Effects of personalized vitamin DBritish journal of cancer · 2026
    Trial
  8. Effects of vitamin D3, omega-3s, and a simple home exercise program on incident vertebral fractures: the DO-HEALTH randomized controlled trial.Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research · 2025
    Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. High-dose vitamin DRespiratory research · 2024
    Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. The potential role of 1,25(OH)Journal of inflammation (London, England) · 2025
    Review
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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Richard B MazessDepartment of Medical Physics University of Wisconsin Madison WI USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6647-4311
Heike A Bischoff-FerrariDepartment of Aging Medicine and Aging Research University of Zurich Zurich Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4554-658X
Bess Dawson-HughesJean Mayer US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging Tufts University Boston MA USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3136-0386
Tufts University · USUnion Bank of Switzerland · CHUniversity of Wisconsin–Madison · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this review we summarize the impact of bolus versus daily dosing of vitamin D on 25(OH)D and 1,25(OH)

Indexed as

AGINGCELL/TISSUE SIGNALINGCLINICAL TRIALSENDOCRINE PATHWAYSNUTRITIONPTH/VIT D/FGF23

Identifiers

PMID34950828
PMCPMC8674779
OpenAlexW3205061222

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.