ReviewCurrent osteoporosis reports2024
Vitamin D-Do Diet Recommendations for Health Remain Strong?
Review in Current osteoporosis reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Approach to personalizing the treatment of osteoporosis.The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism · 2026Review
- Knowledge, Beliefs and Preventive Practices Regarding Osteoporosis: A Cross-Sectional Study in Community Pharmacies in Tunis.Nutrients · 2025Article
- The interplay between childhood obesity and vitamin D deficiency: mechanisms and implications.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
How will the scientific community and authoritative bodies define future nutritional requirements for vitamin D? At the International Symposium on Nutritional Aspects of Musculoskeletal Health, the authors debated the strength of current evidence for setting vitamin D intake recommendations from diet: the positive side of the strength of the evidence (PRO) suggests there is a physiological requirement for vitamin D and the opposing view (CON) that in light of negative results from large, recent trials, particularly those with fractures and bone health outcomes, we are left rudderless. Should we provide recommendations based on empiric treatment of vitamin D for most groups and conditions? It is becoming increasingly evident that vitamin D plays a role in many physiological functions and processes associated with long-term human health; however, to what extent are these benefits apparent beyond what is needed for adequate nutritional status, measured as serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels, for active calcium absorption? The meeting attendees voted for the PRO vs. CON position at the end of the session.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39356464What 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.