SynthesisFundamental & clinical pharmacology2026
Vitamin D Supplementation and Mortality in the Elderly: A Review of a Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Using the REB Method.
Synthesis in Fundamental & clinical pharmacology, 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
backgroundThe results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding the effect of vitamin D supplementation on mortality reduction are conflicting.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to assess the level of evidence through a sensitivity analysis of the meta-analysis by Shah et al. (2024) using the Rebuilt the Evidence Base (REB) method.
methodsThe main inclusion criterion was a double-blind, placebo-controlled RCT design. The exclusion criteria were trials combining vitamin D with other nutrients and unpublished RCTs. The main outcome was all-cause mortality. A bias analysis was performed, followed by a hypothetico-deductive analysis to determine the confirmatory or exploratory nature of each RCT. The REB method was used to interpret the results and assess the level of evidence.
resultsAmong the 25 RCTs included in the meta-analysis by Shah et al., the analysis was performed on 8 RCTs at low risk of bias including 30 320 participants. Seven RCTs raised some concerns, and two RCTs were at high risk of bias according to ROB2. Bias arose from the randomization process, deviations from intended interventions, missing outcome data, and selection of the reported results. The results were statistically significant, in favor of vitamin D supplementation: RR = 0.96 (95% CI [0.92, 1.00]), p = 0.04. No RCT was conclusive.
conclusionAccording to the REB method, there is an evidence signal regarding the benefit of vitamin D supplementation in the population aged 75 and older, which remains to be confirmed.
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.