Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35613725›Full record

Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2022

Effect of active vitamin D treatment on development of type 2 diabetes: DPVD randomised controlled trial in Japanese population.

Tetsuya Kawahara, Gen Suzuki, Shoichi Mizuno, Tetsuya Inazu, Fumiyoshi Kasagi, Chie Kawahara, Yosuke Okada, Yoshiya Tanaka

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
10.6field-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

45 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 79 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Prediabetes.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2025
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Tetsuya KawaharaUniversity of Occupational and Environmental Health, Kitakyushu, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-1268-4871
Gen SuzukiInternational University Health and Welfare Clinic, Ohtawara, Japan.
Shoichi MizunoNational Cancer Center EPOC, Kashiwa, Japan.
Tetsuya InazuRitsumeikan University, Kusatsu, Japan.
Fumiyoshi KasagiRadiation Effects Association, Tokyo, Japan.
Chie KawaharaUniversity of Occupational and Environmental Health, Kitakyushu, Japan.
Yosuke OkadaUniversity of Occupational and Environmental Health, Kitakyushu, Japan.
Yoshiya TanakaUniversity of Occupational and Environmental Health, Kitakyushu, Japan.
University of Occupational and Environmental Health Japan · JPInternational University of Health and Welfare · JPNational Cancer Center Hospital East · JPRadiation Effects Research Foundation · JPRitsumeikan University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess whether eldecalcitol, an active vitamin D analogue

designDouble blinded, multicentre, randomised, placebo controlled trial.

settingThree hospitals in Japan, between June 2013 and August 2019.

participantsPeople aged 30 years and older who had impaired glucose tolerance defined by using a 75 g oral glucose tolerance test and glycated haemoglobin level.

interventionsParticipants were randomised to receive active vitamin D (eldecalcitol 0.75 μg per day; n=630) or matching placebo (n=626) for three years. MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary endpoint was incidence of diabetes. Prespecified secondary endpoints were regression to normoglycaemia and incidence of type 2 diabetes after adjustment for confounding factors at baseline. In addition, bone densities and bone and glucose metabolism markers were assessed.

resultsOf the 1256 participants, 571 (45.5%) were women and 742 (59.1%) had a family history of type 2 diabetes. The mean age of participants was 61.3 years. The mean serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration at baseline was 20.9 ng/mL (52.2 nmol/L); 548 (43.6%) participants had concentrations below 20 ng/mL (50 nmol/L). During a median follow-up of 2.9 years, 79 (12.5%) of 630 participants in the eldecalcitol group and 89 (14.2%) of 626 in the placebo group developed type 2 diabetes (hazard ratio 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.67 to 1.17; P=0.39). Regression to normoglycaemia was achieved in 145 (23.0%) of 630 participants in the eldecalcitol group and 126 (20.1%) of 626 in the placebo group (hazard ratio 1.15, 0.93 to 1.41; P=0.21). After adjustment for confounding factors by multivariable fractional polynomial Cox regression analysis, eldecalcitol significantly lowered the development of diabetes (hazard ratio 0.69, 0.51 to 0.95; P=0.020). In addition, eldecalcitol showed its beneficial effect among the participants with the lower level of basal insulin secretion (hazard ratio 0.41, 0.23 to 0.71; P=0.001). During follow-up, bone mineral densities of the lumbar spine and femoral neck and serum osteocalcin concentrations significantly increased with eldecalcitol compared with placebo (all P<0.001). No significant difference in serious adverse events was observed.

conclusionsAlthough treatment with eldecalcitol did not significantly reduce the incidence of diabetes among people with pre-diabetes, the results suggested the potential for a beneficial effect of eldecalcitol on people with insufficient insulin secretion.

trial registrationUMIN Clinical Trials Registry UMIN000010758.

Indexed as

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2Glucose IntolerancePrediabetic StateAdultDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansJapanMaleMiddle AgedVitamin DVitamin D

Identifiers

PMID35613725
PMCPMC9131780
OpenAlexW4281550532

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.