ArticleJournal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition2024
Inflated effect estimates for vitamin D supplementation are driven by common meta-analytical errors.
Article in Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeHan et al. (J Int Soc Sports Nutr 16:55, 2019) sought to quantify the effects of vitamin D supplementation on strength outcomes among athletes in a meta-analysis. The authors reported a pooled effect size (standardized mean difference; SMD) of -0.75 (95% CI: -1.82 to 0.32, p = 0.17) in favor of supplementation, but the analytical approach was not appropriate for a pooled analysis of randomized controlled trials and the effect sizes were calculated incorrectly. This letter discusses how these issues impact the results and interpretation of the paper, then provides an update on the estimated average effect of vitamin D on strength outcomes in athletes.
methodsIdentified errors included the use of within-group rather than between-group effect size metrics, the use of standard error values in place of standard deviations, and failure to account for correlated observations within the model. The data were reanalyzed after correcting for these common meta-analytic errors.
resultsThe results of this reanalysis reflect a dramatically smaller and statistically nonsignificant pooled effect estimate of SMD = 0.16 (-0.24 to 0.56, p = 0.43) in favor of supplementation. Further, the model from this reanalysis has more favorable statistical characteristics than the original analysis, as evidenced by a fairly symmetrical funnel plot and a nonsignificant result for Cochrane's Q test (Q = 5.02, p = 0.41).
conclusionIn order to disseminate robust information to sports nutrition practitioners and researchers, it is critically important for meta-analyses to produce valid effect estimates that are appropriate for the underlying study designs and calculated without error. This letter highlights common errors to inform the calculation and interpretation of future meta-analyses in sports nutrition.
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.