Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39203855›Full record

SynthesisNutrients2024

Umbrella Review on the Relationship between Vitamin D Levels and Cancer.

Matthias Schömann-Finck, Jörg Reichrath

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Nutrients, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Vitamin D and Kawasaki disease.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

2 authors.

Matthias Schömann-FinckGerman University of Applied Sciences for Prevention and Health Management, 66123 Saarbrücken, Germany.
Jörg ReichrathDepartment of Dermatology, The Saarland University Hospital, 66421 Homburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9254-6953

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCancer is a growing public health problem and cancer is linked to vitamin D via several mechanisms. Recent umbrella reviews on the extra-skeletal effects of vitamin D did not turn their attention to cancer. Accordingly, an overview of the current state of research is needed. MATERIALS AND

methodsAn umbrella review was conducted to provide an overview of systematic reviews on the association between vitamin D and incidence or mortality of breast cancer, colorectal cancer, lung cancer, pancreatic cancer, and prostate cancer.

resultsInverse correlations were found between the vitamin D level (measured by circulating 25(OH)D) and mortality for all five types of cancer. For breast cancer, colorectal cancer, lung cancer, and pancreatic cancer, there are also hints of a lower incidence due to higher 25(OH)D levels.

conclusionAs most reviews include observational studies, conclusions on causality cannot be made. Methodological differences between the included reviews and different study designs in the individual studies lead to methodological problems. Despite these problems, the review shows inverse correlations between 25(OH)D levels and mortality, and mostly inverse correlations between 25(OH)D levels and incidence.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsVitamin DBreast NeoplasmsColorectal NeoplasmsFemaleHumansIncidenceLung NeoplasmsMalePancreatic NeoplasmsProstatic NeoplasmsRisk FactorsVitamin D Deficiency25-hydroxyvitamin DVitamin D25(OH)D statusbreast cancercancercolorectal carcinomalung cancerpancreatic cancerprostate cancerumbrella reviewvitamin Dvitamin D status

Identifiers

PMID39203855
PMCPMC11356988

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.