Higher circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration vs Lower circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration: Alzheimer’s disease
The meta-analysis of observational studies reported a SMD (to OR) of 0.08 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.63) for higher versus lower circulating vitamin D concentration.
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Higher circulating 25OHD concentration vs Lower circulating 25OHD concentration Alzheimer’s disease · Participants in observational studies The meta-analysis of observational studies reported a SMD (to OR) of 0.08 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.63) for higher versus lower circulating vitamin D concentration. Vitamin D and multiple health outcomes: umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of… (2014) All outcomes | SMD (to OR) 0.08 [0.01, 0.63] | 7 studies · 1005 participants | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitamin D and multiple health outcomes: umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies and randomised… 2014 All outcomes | 11 October 2013 | 55 | Not applicable |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.