ArticleClinical hypertension2022
Circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels and hypertension risk after adjusting for publication bias.
Article in Clinical hypertension, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Vitamin D in Cardiovascular Medicine: From Molecular Mechanisms to Clinical Translation.Nutrients · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrevious systematic reviews reported that serum vitamin D deficiency was associated with risk of hypertension. The aim was to conduct a meta-epidemiological analysis for evaluating the potential effects of publication bias.
methodsThe selection criterion was defined as a follow-up study for evaluating the association between circulating 25-hydroxyvitam D level and hypertension risk in adults. A funnel plot and Egger's test were used to detect a publication bias. If a publication bias was identified, trim-and-fill analysis (TFA) with linear estimator was performed to estimate a summary relative risk (sRR).
resultsThe meta-analysis of 13 cohorts resulted in the lower the vitamin D, the higher the risk of hypertension statistically significant (sRR, 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05 to 1.41). But The P-value of Egger's test (=0.015) and asymmetry of the funnel plot showed that there was a publication bias. TFA resulted in that statistical significance disappeared in the association between vitamin D level and hypertension risk in total cohorts (filled sRR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.18) as well as men and women cohorts.
conclusionsThe publication bias-adjusted results by TFA had no statistically significant association between vitamin D levels and the risk of hypertension. The significant results in previous systematic reviews might be interpreted as due to publication bias.
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.