Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41219595›Full record

ReviewAdvances in experimental medicine and biology2026

Decoding Vitamin D Intake: How Much Is Too Much?

Nickolas Vasil, Mohammed S Razzaque

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Advances in experimental medicine and biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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

2 authors.

Nickolas VasilLake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine (LECOM), Erie, PA, USA.
Mohammed S RazzaqueDepartment of Medical Education, School of Medicine, University of Texas Rio Grande Valley (UTRGV), Edinburg, TX, USA. mohammed.razzaque@utrgv.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Vitamin D has long been accepted as a vital nutrient for bone health, with past guidelines supporting supplementation to maintain optimal levels. However, the recently updated 2024 Endocrine Society guidelines introduce a more conservative approach, shifting the focus away from widespread supplementation in healthy individuals and instead emphasizing use in high-risk populations. This chapter analyzes the key changes from the previous 2011 guidelines, including the removal of strict serum level thresholds for deficiency, revised daily intake recommendations, and screening criteria. The shift reflects growing evidence suggesting that excessive vitamin D supplementation may not provide additional health benefits and can contribute to risks such as hypercalcemia, kidney dysfunction, and eventual increased healthcare costs. The commentary explains the rationale behind said changes and the value for using evidence-based supplementation. Finally, we discuss the implications of these updated guidelines on paving clinicians' decision-making for their patients while highlighting the need for increased awareness and adherence to ensure safe and effective vitamin D consumption.

Indexed as

Dietary SupplementsVitamin DVitamin D DeficiencyHumansPractice Guidelines as TopicVitamin DCalcificationSupplementationVitamin DVitamin D guidelinesVitamin D toxicity

Identifiers

PMID41219595

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.