Higher circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration vs Lower circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration: Ischaemic stroke
- Population
- Adults (general population)
- Intervention
- Higher circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration
- Comparison
- Lower circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration
- Outcome
- Ischaemic stroke
Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower 25(OH)D) for Ischaemic stroke (Hazard ratio (cohort studies)): HR 0.66 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.80), statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Suggestive.
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Higher circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration vs Lower circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration Ischaemic stroke · Adults (general population) · Hazard ratio (cohort studies) Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower 25(OH)D) for Ischaemic stroke (Hazard ratio (cohort studies)): HR 0.66 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.80), statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Suggestive. Vitamin D and multiple health outcomes: umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of… (2014) All outcomes | HR 0.66 [0.55, 0.80] | 4 studies · 26596 participants | GRADE not reported |
Higher circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration vs Lower circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration Ischaemic stroke · Adults (general population) · Odds ratio (case-control studies) Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower 25(OH)D) for Ischaemic stroke (Odds ratio (case-control studies)): OR 0.52 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.61), statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Suggestive. Vitamin D and multiple health outcomes: umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of… (2014) All outcomes | OR 0.52 [0.44, 0.61] | 5 studies · 31858 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 |
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.