ReviewEJIFCC2024
Vitamin D Controversies in the Laboratory Medicine: A Review of Clinical Guidelines and Recommendations.
Review in EJIFCC, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Maternal serum vitamin D levels and preeclampsia among Kenyan pregnant women: A matched case-control study.PloS one · 2026Article
- Vitamin D and Chronic Disorders: A Review of Metabolic and Cardiovascular Diseases.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Review
- Exploring the significance of vitamin D insufficiency in the periodic fever, aphthous stomatitis, pharyngitis, and cervical adenitis (PFAPA) syndrome: a single-center retrospective assessment during the decade 2014-2024.Internal and emergency medicine · 2025Article
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
A narrative review of the main guidelines and recommendations published from 2011 up to date about the status of vitamin D deficiency has been carried out. The objective of this review is to discuss the origin of the controversy about the status of this entity, as well as the evolution of the methodological aspects and clinical situations that require vitamin D screening. The results obtained indicate that the criteria defining vitamin D status, according to two studies published in 2011, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommendations and the Endocrine Society (ES) guidelines, regardless the affected population. Concerning the methodology used, progress has been made thanks to the Vitamin D Standardization Program (VDSP), although the most recent results from the external Vitamin D External Quality Program Assessment Scheme (DEQAS) indicate that there is still a significant bias among the different immunoassays available. In relation to the criteria for screening, an agreement is observed in the most recent publications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39810891PMC11726334What 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.