SynthesisBMC nutrition2025
Are there prophylactic effects of vitamin D among healthier adult patients? A systematic review of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in BMC nutrition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn 2017, a study uncovered increasing trends in vitamin D supplementation, revealing that 18% of adults exceeded 1000 international units (IU) daily, and 3% surpassed the safe limit of 4000 IU, raising concern for severe hypercalcemia and associated pathological effects on the kidneys, heart, and vascular system. While vitamin D is well-established for prophylactic use against osteomalacia and osteoporosis, its extra-skeletal benefits for healthy individuals, such as improving insulin sensitivity and low-density lipoprotein, remain unclear. This study focuses on defining healthy adults and exploring the potential benefits and drawbacks of prophylactic vitamin D supplementation.
methodsUsing PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus databases, 10,155 articles on vitamin D prophylaxis were identified. Randomized controlled trials targeting healthy patients receiving vitamin D for prophylaxis were included, with exclusions based on language, absence of reported outcomes, and patient history. Articles were screened and evaluated by Covidence and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, respectively. Dosage, form, frequency, duration, follow-up care, outcomes, and complications of included articles were recorded. This study protocol has been registered to PROSPERO: CRD42023446944.
resultsOut of 18 articles, 4,415 patients showed low bias risk by the Cochrane tool. Seven studies found significant improvements: protection against autoimmune reactions, elevated hematological and iron profiles, reduced influenza-like illness, and enhanced cognitive tasks. 5000 IU Vitamin D for four weeks significantly reduced cholesterol, unlike 1000 IU for 16 weeks. Conversely, 11 studies revealed no Vitamin D impact on outcomes including hemoglobin-A1c, lipoproteins, BMI, blood pressures, and respiratory infections.
conclusionExcept for a few outcomes, most prophylactic Vitamin D supplementation was generally not found to have statistically significant benefits in the healthy adult population. Future directions can include additional prospective studies with larger sample sizes of healthy adults testing for benefits and adverse effects of prophylactic vitamin D use.
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.