ReviewAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2024
Effect of vitamin D supplementation on cardiovascular outcomes: an updated meta-analysis of RCTs.
Review in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Emerging Prognostic Risk Factors in Acute Coronary Syndromes: Beyond Traditional Risk Assessment.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Vitamin D and calcium status in HYDRIA, Greece: associations with dietary and supplemental sources.European journal of nutrition · 2026Article
- Vitamin D in Cardiovascular Medicine: From Molecular Mechanisms to Clinical Translation.Nutrients · 2026Review
- Explainable machine learning for predicting coronary heart disease risk in patients with carotid atherosclerosis: A retrospective study with SHAP and decision curve analysis.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2026Article
- Vitamin D and Chronic Disorders: A Review of Metabolic and Cardiovascular Diseases.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the effect of vitamin D supplementation on cardiovascular outcomes. Methods: After searching different databases, we retrieved and included randomized controlled trials on long-term supplementation of vitamin D (≥1-year intervention) and reporting cardiovascular outcomes. We calculated risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. Results: Compared to the control group, the vitamin D group was not associated with a statistically significant decrease in the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) [risk ratio=0.99; 95% CI: 0.94-1.03]. We found no difference between the vitamin D group and the control group for the outcomes of incidences of myocardial infarction, heart failure, coronary revascularization, cardiovascular death, and all-cause mortality. The heterogeneity was low for all outcomes. Conclusion: According to our meta-analysis, vitamin D supplementation did not reduce major adverse cardiovascular events, other cardiovascular parameters, and all-cause mortality.
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.