Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37865222›Full record

SynthesisAdvances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.)2024

Comparison of the Effect of Daily Vitamin D2 and Vitamin D3 Supplementation on Serum 25-Hydroxyvitamin D Concentration (Total 25(OH)D, 25(OH)D2, and 25(OH)D3) and Importance of Body Mass Index: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Ellen Ghm van den Heuvel, Paul Lips, Linda J Schoonmade, Susan A Lanham-New, Natasja M van Schoor

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
11.2field-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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Vitamin D3 contribution to systemic and local control ofFrontiers in molecular biosciences · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Ellen Ghm van den HeuvelScelta Mushrooms B.V., Venlo, The Netherlands.
Paul LipsAmsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Internal Medicine, Endocrine section, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Linda J SchoonmadeVrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Medical Library, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Susan A Lanham-NewDepartment of Nutrition, Food & Exercise Sciences, University of Surrey, Faculty of Health & Medical Sciences, School of Biosciences, United Kingdom. Electronic address: s.lanham-new@surrey.ac.uk.
Natasja M van SchoorDepartment of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Aging & Later Life, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Amsterdam University Medical Centers · NLUniversity of Surrey · GBVrije Universiteit Amsterdam · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTwo previous meta-analyses showed smaller differences between vitamin D3 and vitamin D2 in raising serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] and a consistently high heterogeneity when only including daily dosing studies.

objectiveThis study aimed to compare more frequently dosed vitamin D2 and vitamin D3 in improving total 25(OH)D and determine the concomitant effect of response modifiers on heterogeneity, and secondly, to compare the vitamin D2-associated change in 25(OH)D2 with the vitamin D3-associated change in 25(OH)D3.

methodsPubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and the Web of Science Core collection were searched for randomized controlled trials of vitamin D2 compared with vitamin D3, daily or once/twice weekly dosed. After screening for eligibility, relevant data were extracted for meta-analyses to determine the standardized mean difference when different methods of 25(OH)D analyses were used. Otherwise, the weighted mean difference (WMD) was determined.

resultsOverall, the results based on 20 comparative studies showed vitamin D3 to be superior to vitamin D2 in raising total 25(OH)D concentrations, but vitamin D2 and vitamin D3 had a similar positive impact on their corresponding 25(OH)D hydroxylated forms. The WMD in change in total 25(OH)D based on 12 daily dosed vitamin D2-vitamin D3 comparisons, analyzed using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry, was 10.39 nmol/L (40%) lower for the vitamin D2 group compared with the vitamin D3 group (95% confidence interval: -14.62, -6.16; I

conclusionsVitamin D3 leads to a greater increase of 25(OH)D than vitamin D2, even if limited to daily dose studies, but vitamin D2 and vitamin D3 had similar positive impacts on their corresponding 25(OH)D hydroxylated forms. Next to baseline 25(OH)D concentration, BMI should be considered when comparing the effect of daily vitamin D2 and vitamin D3 supplementation on total 25(OH)D concentration. This study was registered in PROSPERO as CRD42021272674.

Indexed as

CholecalciferolErgocalciferolsVitamin DBody Mass IndexDietary SupplementsHumansVitamin D Deficiency25-hydroxyvitamin DCholecalciferolErgocalciferolsVitamin D25(OH)Dbioavailabilitycholecalciferolergocalciferolhealthy adultsmeta-analysissystematic reviewvitamin D response

Identifiers

PMID37865222
PMCPMC10831883
OpenAlexW4387817151

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.