ArticleActa neurologica Belgica2026
Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D and neurological disability in multiple sclerosis: a cross-sectional study in a Libyan multicenter cohort.
Article in Acta neurologica Belgica, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVitamin D is widely studied in multiple sclerosis (MS), yet its clinical relevance for disability and relapse activity remains uncertain, particularly in underrepresented populations.
objectiveTo examine whether serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] levels are associated with disability or relapse activity in a multicenter cohort of Libyan adults with MS.
methodsIn a cross-sectional cohort of adults with MS (n = 369), the exposure was 25(OH)D scaled per 10 ng/mL (vitD10). Primary outcomes were the continuous Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and annualized relapse rate (ARR). We prespecified equivalence margins of ± 0.30 EDSS points and ± 0.25 ARR units, and fitted multivariable models adjusted for demographic, clinical, lifestyle, and treatment-related factors using HC3 robust standard errors. Two one-sided tests (TOST) were used to evaluate equivalence.
resultsFor continuous EDSS, effect estimates were small and the 90% confidence interval lay within the ± 0.30 margin, supporting equivalence. Results for ARR were similarly within the prespecified ± 0.25 margin.There was little evidence of non-linearity, and sensitivity analyses, including measurement-error correction, did not materially change the findings. An exploratory threshold analysis at EDSS ≥ 4 suggested a small increase in odds (OR 1.47, 95% CI 1.01-2.15), which was not supported by continuous analyses and should be interpreted cautiously.
conclusionsIn this cross-sectional study, differences in 25(OH)D were unlikely to correspond to clinically meaningful differences in disability. These findings suggest the absence of clinically meaningful effects on established disability, while not excluding potential roles in inflammatory activity or earlier disease processes. Prospective studies with longitudinal measurements are needed to clarify temporal relationships and effect modification.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42329560What 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.