ReviewCureus2022
The Relationship between Vitamin D and Basal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Association of Vitamin D with Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer Risk: An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Pooled it
- Emerging perspectives: unraveling the anticancer potential of vitamin DNaunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2024Review
- Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer and Vitamin D: The "Lost Sunlight" Paradox and the Oxidative Stress Explanation.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- A novel approach toward skin cancer classification through fused deep features and neutrosophic environment.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Potential tactics with vitamin D and certain phytochemicals for enhancing the effectiveness of immune-checkpoint blockade therapies.Exploration of targeted anti-tumor therapy · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review studies the relationship between vitamin D serum levels and basal cell carcinoma (BCC). The primary source of vitamin D is sunlight exposure. Recently, an increase in the intake of vitamin D supplements has been noticed. The protective value of vitamin D is well established and has been studied several times for the health of the bones, cartilage, growth, various dermatological diseases, and also as a chemoprotective agent against several cancers. On the scientific front, it has yet to be established that increasing serum vitamin D levels increase the incidence of BCC. We included reports that investigated this relationship in this review. We applied keywords in published papers in PubMed, ScienceDirect, Cochrane, and Google Scholar to find relevant studies. After applying the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) checklist and the quality appraisal for 68 records, we included only ten studies. In these studies, serum levels of vitamin D were measured. Five of them supported the link between BCC incidence and development and high serum vitamin D levels (e.g., Mahamat-Saleh Y, et al.), while the other five did not (e.g., Tang JY, et al.). We included only two studies that investigated the vitamin D receptor (VDR) polymorphism. Experts debate adding a high dose of vitamin D supplements to our daily routine. After studying most of the reports, it was ascertained that the literature supports keeping vitamin D serum levels below 30-60 nmol/L. However, further studies should be done to help find a healthy balance of vitamin D serum levels, especially when it comes to increasing the risk of cancer like BCC.
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.