Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40322473›Full record

ReviewPerspectives in clinical research

Vitamin D supplementation trials: Navigating the maze of unpredictable results.

Shruti Singh, Rajesh Kumar Meena, Vikas Maharshi, Nishi Sinha, Neha Agarwal, Shuvasree Payra, Divya Harsha

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Perspectives in clinical research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
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

7 authors.

Shruti SinghDepartment of Pharmacology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, Bihar, India.
Rajesh Kumar MeenaDepartment of Pharmacology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, Bihar, India.
Vikas MaharshiDepartment of Pharmacology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, Bihar, India.
Nishi SinhaDepartment of Pharmacology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, Bihar, India.
Neha AgarwalDepartment of Pharmacology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, Bihar, India.
Shuvasree PayraDepartment of Pharmacology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, Bihar, India.
Divya HarshaDepartment of Pharmacology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, Bihar, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Vitamin D supplementation studies in various pleiotropic outcomes often yield conflicting results. This complexity arises from various factors, including individual differences (baseline Vitamin D levels, genetics, ethnicity, age, and gender). This review aims to clarify the complexities in Vitamin D supplementation research by examining various influencing factors, ultimately providing a comprehensive understanding to guide future studies and offer more accurate insights into the health impacts of Vitamin D supplementation. For this review, we searched PubMed, Google Scholar, and ScienceDirect, analyzing observational studies, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials to identify key factors influencing the efficacy of Vitamin D supplementation. By synthesizing findings from diverse research, we aimed to illuminate the nuances shaping the outcomes of these trials. In conclusion, the review suggests that several demographic and biological factors such as baseline 25(OH)D levels, age, ethnicity, genetics, body mass index, diet, sun exposure, medications, comorbid conditions, socioeconomic status, and self-supplementation all play significant roles in the outcomes of Vitamin D supplementation trials. In addition, the dose and duration of therapy, choice of daily versus bolus dosing, route of administration, and the role of free and bound forms of Vitamin D contribute to the complexity of trial results. Vitamin D's pleiotropic effects extend beyond calcium regulation, impacting various health aspects. Inadequate blood levels can confound trial outcomes, emphasizing the importance of reaching appropriate 25(OH)D thresholds. Study design, sample size, bias minimization, and methodology are critical in influencing trial outcomes and designing studies that account for baseline levels and compliance is crucial for meaningful and accurate results. Standardized assays and internationally agreed-upon cutoff levels are essential to mitigate variability in 25(OH)D measurements and improve result reliability.

Indexed as

Clinical trialsdaily versus bolus dosingdose-response relationshipefficacy outcomesobservational studiespleitropic effectsroute of administrationsegmentationVitamin D supplementation

Identifiers

PMID40322473
PMCPMC12048097

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.