ReviewAdvances in experimental medicine and biology2026
Decoding Vitamin D Intake: How Much Is Too Much?
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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The 2024 Endocrine Society Guideline on Vitamin D: Comprehensive Summary and Critical Appraisal.Nutrients · 2026Pooled it
- Vitamin D in Cardiovascular Medicine: From Molecular Mechanisms to Clinical Translation.Nutrients · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
41219595What 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.