ArticleEuropean journal of clinical nutrition2025
Vitamin D status of adults in the North of the Netherlands: cross-sectional results from the Lifelines cohort study.
Article in European journal of clinical nutrition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Determinants of Vitamin D Status: An Analysis in a Primary Care Setting in Lithuania of Age, Gender and Seasonality.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesMaintaining an adequate vitamin D status is challenging for part of the Dutch adults; therefore, use of vitamin D supplements is advised for certain subgroups. Recent studies on vitamin D status in the general Dutch population are lacking. This study aimed to investigate vitamin D status in a Dutch adult population and how it compared to twelve years earlier. SUBJECTS/
methodsBlood samples from participants of the Lifelines cohort collected in March 2023 were analysed for 25(OH)D₃ concentration (N = 1000). Log 25(OH)D₃ concentrations and proportion participants with a 25(OH)D₃ concentration <30 (18-69 yrs)/<50 nmol/L (≥70 yrs) were compared across gender and age groups (18-49, 50-69, and ≥70 yrs) using t-tests and ANOVA. Vitamin D status in March 2023 was compared to the status in March 2011 (N = 1221). Additionally, monthly variation in vitamin D status within 2011 was studied.
resultsMen had a significantly lower median 25(OH)D₃ concentration compared to women. 25(OH)D₃ concentration increased with age. Vitamin D deficiency was observed in 7% of women 50-69 yrs and in 26% of men and 13% of women ≥70 yrs. Compared to March 2011, 25(OH)D₃ concentration in March 2023 was significantly higher (median 45-49 vs. 54-75 nmol/L). Vitamin D status throughout 2011 showed highest deficiency levels in winter.
conclusionsVitamin D status improved between 2011 and 2023, but still up to a quarter of men and women in different age groups were vitamin D deficient at the end of the winter of 2023. Vitamin D status was highest in the subgroups with supplementation advice.
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.