SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2026
Serum vitamin D levels and prostate cancer: an umbrella review and pooled analysis of observational meta-analyses.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 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
Background: This umbrella review examines the controversial link between serum vitamin D levels and prostate cancer (PC) risk by systematically re-analyzing existing meta-analyses. It aims to synthesize the available evidence while acknowledging the inherent limitations of umbrella reviews and observational data. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was performed to identify all meta-analyses assessing serum vitamin D levels and PC risk up to January 2025. Eligible studies were observational meta-analyses reporting pooled effect sizes (ORs, RRs, or HRs) to determine the association between circulating vitamin D and PC incidence; however, other types of designs were excluded. Data extraction was performed using a standardized framework. Heterogeneity assessment was performed by utilizing Cochran's Q test and I Results: Pooled categorical analyses suggested a small but statistically significant association between higher serum vitamin D levels and increased PC risk (OR: 1.06; 95% CI: 1.02-1.09; p=0.001), with low heterogeneity. Moreover, sensitivity analyses showed consistent findings across individual study exclusions. In contrast, pooled relative risk estimates per 10-ng/mL increment in serum vitamin D did not show a significant association (RR: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.99-1.06; p=0.207). Sensitivity analyses did not materially change these findings. Conclusion: Higher serum vitamin D levels may be associated with a slightly increased odds of PC in categorical analyses, but the evidence does not support a clear linear dose-response relationship. Given the observational nature of the included evidence, residual confounding, and modest effect sizes, these findings should be interpreted cautiously.
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.