Search

What do systematic reviews say?

Refine by population, intervention, comparison or outcome
More filters
Evidence found and GRADE certainty

2,745 questions · 4,389 findings · 203 reviews · Oral Health

No studies found 39 · 0.9%GRADE not reported 3,844 · 87.6%Very low 198 · 4.5%Low 137 · 3.1%Moderate 134 · 3.1%High 37 · 0.8%

Higher circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration vs Lower circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration

CVD · Adults (general population)

Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower 25(OH)D) for Cardiovascular disease: RR 0.66 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.77), statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Suggestive.

1 finding from 1 review

Higher circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration vs Lower circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration

Depression · Adults (general population)

Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower 25(OH)D) for Depression (Cohort studies): HR 0.44 (95% CI 0.27 to 0.72), statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Suggestive.

2 findings from 1 review

Vitamin D compounds (supplementation) vs placebo or control

Vascular calcification · Adults with chronic kidney disease requiring dialysis

Meta-analysis of randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation for Vascular calcification: RR 1.09 (95% CI 0.45 to 2.67), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: No conclusion.

1 finding from 1 review

Vitamin D compounds (supplementation) vs placebo or control

All‐cause mortality · Adults with chronic kidney disease requiring dialysis

Meta-analysis of randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation for Mortality: RR 1.34 (95% CI 0.34 to 5.24), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: No conclusion.

1 finding from 1 review

Vitamin D vs placebo or control

Serum fasting triglyceride (TG, mmol/L) · Adults (general population)

Meta-analysis of randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation for Triglycerides: WMD -1.92 (95% CI -7.72 to 3.88), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: No conclusion.

1 finding from 1 review

Higher circulating 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (1,25(OH)2D) concentration vs Lower circulating 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (1,25(OH)2D) concentration

Breast cancer · Adults (general population)

Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower 1,25(OH)2D) for Breast cancer: OR 0.99 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.44), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: No conclusion.

1 finding from 1 review

Higher circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration vs Lower circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration

Ischaemic stroke · Adults (general population)

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.

2 findings from 1 review

Vitamin D vs placebo or control

High density lipoprotein · Adults (general population)

Meta-analysis of randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation for High density lipoprotein: WMD -0.14 (95% CI -0.99 to 0.71), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Substantial effect unlikely.

1 finding from 1 review

Higher circulating 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (1,25(OH)2D) concentration vs Lower circulating 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (1,25(OH)2D) concentration

Colon cancer · Adults (general population)

Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower 1,25(OH)2D) for Colon cancer: OR 0.88 (95% CI 0.57 to 1.35), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: No conclusion.

1 finding from 1 review

Vitamin D vs placebo or control

Falls · Older or community-dwelling adults

Meta-analysis of randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation for Falls, Older adults: OR 0.97 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.11), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: No conclusion.

3 findings from 1 review

Higher circulating 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (1,25(OH)2D) concentration vs Lower circulating 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (1,25(OH)2D) concentration

Aggressive prostate cancer · Adults (general population)

Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower 1,25(OH)2D) for Aggressive prostate cancer: OR 0.75 (95% CI 0.48 to 1.17), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Substantial effect unlikely.

1 finding from 1 review

Vitamin D compounds (supplementation) vs placebo or control

Alkaline phosphatase · Adults with chronic kidney disease requiring dialysis

Meta-analysis of randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation for Alkaline phosphatase: WMD -27.35 (95% CI -50.69 to -4.01), statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Suggestive.

1 finding from 1 review

Higher maternal circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration vs Lower maternal circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration

Gestational diabetes · pregnant women and their infants..

Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower maternal 25(OH)D) for Gestational diabetes: OR 0.67 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.85), statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Suggestive.

1 finding from 1 review

Vitamin D vs placebo or control

Fracture · Older or community-dwelling adults

Meta-analysis of randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation for Fractures, Men aged >65 years and postmenopausal women: RR 1.01 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.09), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: No conclusion.

1 finding from 1 review

Vitamin D vs placebo or control

Bone mineral density in forearm · Older or community-dwelling adults

Meta-analysis of randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation for Bone mineral density in forearm, Community-dwelling adults: WMD -0.70 (95% CI -1.70 to 0.40), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: No conclusion.

1 finding from 1 review

Higher circulating 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (1,25(OH)2D) concentration vs Lower circulating 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (1,25(OH)2D) concentration

Prostate cancer · Adults (general population)

Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower 1,25(OH)2D) for Prostate cancer: OR 0.99 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.14), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Substantial effect unlikely.

1 finding from 1 review

Higher circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration vs Lower circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration

Kidney cancer · Adults (general population)

Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower 25(OH)D) for Kidney cancer: OR 1.01 (95% CI 0.65 to 1.58), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Substantial effect unlikely.

1 finding from 1 review

Higher circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration vs Lower circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration

Fracture · Participants in observational studies

The meta-analysis of observational studies reported a SMD (to OR) of 0.31 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.42) for higher versus lower circulating vitamin D concentration.

1 finding from 1 review