Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36145186›Full record

ReviewNutrients2022

Comparing the Evidence from Observational Studies and Randomized Controlled Trials for Nonskeletal Health Effects of Vitamin D.

William B Grant, Barbara J Boucher, Fatme Al Anouti, Stefan Pilz

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nutrients, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

William B GrantSunlight, Nutrition and Health Research Center, San Francisco, CA 94164-1603, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1439-3285
Barbara J BoucherThe London School of Medicine and Dentistry, The Blizard Institute, Barts, Queen Mary University of London, London E1 2AT, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1206-7555
Fatme Al AnoutiDepartment of Health Sciences, College of Natural and Health Sciences, Zayed University, Abu Dhabi 144534, United Arab Emirates.ORCID 0000-0002-1993-6656
Stefan PilzDivision of Endocrinology and Diabetology, Department of Internal Medicine, Medical University of Graz, 8036 Graz, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although observational studies of health outcomes generally suggest beneficial effects with, or following, higher serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] concentrations, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have generally not supported those findings. Here we review results from observational studies and RCTs regarding how vitamin D status affects several nonskeletal health outcomes, including Alzheimer's disease and dementia, autoimmune diseases, cancers, cardiovascular disease, COVID-19, major depressive disorder, type 2 diabetes, arterial hypertension, all-cause mortality, respiratory tract infections, and pregnancy outcomes. We also consider relevant findings from ecological, Mendelian randomization, and mechanistic studies. Although clear discrepancies exist between findings of observational studies and RCTs on vitamin D and human health benefits these findings should be interpreted cautiously. Bias and confounding are seen in observational studies and vitamin D RCTs have several limitations, largely due to being designed like RCTs of therapeutic drugs, thereby neglecting vitamin D's being a nutrient with a unique metabolism that requires specific consideration in trial design. Thus, RCTs of vitamin D can fail for several reasons: few participants' having low baseline 25(OH)D concentrations, relatively small vitamin D doses, participants' having other sources of vitamin D, and results being analyzed without consideration of achieved 25(OH)D concentrations. Vitamin D status and its relevance for health outcomes can usefully be examined using Hill's criteria for causality in a biological system from results of observational and other types of studies before further RCTs are considered and those findings would be useful in developing medical and public health policy, as they were for nonsmoking policies. A promising approach for future RCT design is adjustable vitamin D supplementation based on interval serum 25(OH)D concentrations to achieve target 25(OH)D levels suggested by findings from observational studies.

Indexed as

COVID-19Vitamin D DeficiencyDietary SupplementsFemaleHumansObservational Studies as TopicPregnancyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicVitamin DVitaminsVitamin DVitaminsbreast cancercolorectal cancergestational diabetespreeclampsiapreterm birth

Identifiers

PMID36145186
PMCPMC9501276

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.