Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36062009›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in neurology2022

Vitamin D supplementation and risk of stroke: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Jia Fu, Junfang Sun, Chao Zhang

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
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.

Jia FuDepartment of Neurology, Chifeng Municipal Hospital, Chifeng, China.
Junfang SunThe Second Affiliated Hospital of Baotou Medical College, Inner Mongolia University of Science and Technology, Baotou, China.
Chao ZhangDepartment of Geriatrics, Chifeng Municipal Hospital, Chifeng, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Previous observational studies have supported the hypothesis that vitamin D supplementation protects against stroke. However, several current intervention studies contradict this observation. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to investigate further the association between vitamin D supplementation and the risk of stroke. Methods: This meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA statement and included all the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that analyzed the relationship between vitamin D supplementation and the risk of stroke. A literature search strategy was established, and the following Medical Search Terms (MeSH) were used: "vitamin D," "Calcitriol," "Calcifediol," "Cholecalciferol," "25-Hydroxyvitamin D 2," "ergocalciferols," "stroke," and stroke-derived terms. We searched for articles published before January 2022 in several databases, namely, PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library. We also reviewed references included in relevant published meta-analyses and searched the http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov website for additional RCTs. The Results: In total, twenty-four RCTs (86,202 participants) were included. There was no statistical heterogeneity among the RCTs ( Conclusion: Our study revealed that additional vitamin D supplementation did not reduce the risk of stroke. Therefore, additional RCTs of similar design should not be encouraged to assess any association between vitamin D supplementation and reduced stroke risk.

Indexed as

25-hydroxy vitamin Dmeta-analysisprospective randomized controlled trialsstrokevitamin D

Identifiers

PMID36062009
PMCPMC9434369

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.