Vitamin D vs placebo or control: Fasting blood glucose (mg/dL)
- Population
- Adults with diabetes
- Intervention
- Vitamin D
- Comparison
- placebo or control
- Outcome
- Fasting blood glucose (mg/dL)
Meta-analysis of randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation for Fasting glucose (Diabetes patients with normal glucose tolerance): WMD 0.01 (95% CI -0.21 to 0.23), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Substantial effect unlikely.
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Vitamin D supplementation vs Placebo or control Fasting glucose · Adults with diabetes · Diabetes patients with normal glucose tolerance Meta-analysis of randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation for Fasting glucose (Diabetes patients with normal glucose tolerance): WMD 0.01 (95% CI -0.21 to 0.23), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Substantial effect unlikely. Vitamin D and multiple health outcomes: umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of… (2014) All outcomes | WMD 0.01 [-0.21, 0.23] | Not reported | GRADE not reported |
Vitamin D supplementation vs Placebo or control Fasting glucose · Adults with diabetes · Diabetes patients with abnormal glucose tolerance Meta-analysis of randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation for Fasting glucose (Diabetes patients with abnormal glucose tolerance): WMD -0.3 (95% CI -0.9 to 0.3), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Substantial effect unlikely. Vitamin D and multiple health outcomes: umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of… (2014) All outcomes | WMD -0.3 [-0.9, 0.3] | Not reported | 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 |
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.