ReviewCureus2026
A Systematic Review of Evidence, Misinterpretations, and the Urgent Need for Population-Specific Reference Standards Related to Vitamin D Deficiency in India: A Global Myth Imposed Locally?
Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
India reports very high biochemical vitamin D deficiency when global cut-offs are applied, yet the corresponding disease burden appears low. Whether current thresholds are appropriate for Indian populations, therefore, remains uncertain. In this review, we aimed to systematically analyze the literature on vitamin D and non-skeletal outcomes and critically evaluate whether current deficiency thresholds are appropriate for India. We searched PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane databases (Jan 1, 2010, to Feb 29, 2024), focusing on randomized trials (RCTs), meta-analyses, and observational studies addressing vitamin D and disease outcomes. Indian-specific modifiers, including sunlight, skin pigmentation, calcium intake, and parathyroid hormone (PTH) sensitivity, were analyzed. Two reviewers independently screened records, assessed risk of bias (Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 (RoB 2.0) for RCTs and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for observational studies), and performed a narrative synthesis, with prespecified quantitative pooling conducted when studies were homogeneous. Out of 22,435 records, 78 studies were included. High-quality RCTs (VITAL, D-Health) consistently showed no benefit from supplementation for non-skeletal outcomes. Indian prevalence data, using a <20 ng/mL threshold, revealed high "deficiency" rates but minimal clinical disease. PTH-calcium studies from India indicated that 25(OH)D levels >12 ng/mL are sufficient to maintain normocalcemia and suppress secondary hyperparathyroidism, thereby questioning the validity of global thresholds. Global cut-offs have therefore created an inflated burden of vitamin D deficiency in India. Thresholds must be recalibrated using Indian outcome-linked data, not extrapolated norms. Evidence suggests that a threshold of 12 ng/mL is more physiologically valid for Indian populations. Mass screening and supplementation in asymptomatic populations should therefore be discouraged.
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.