Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

155 questions · 204 findings · 6 reviews · Dental caries

No studies found 2 · 1%GRADE not reported 201 · 98.5%Very low 1 · 0.5%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

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

Rectal cancer · Adults (general population)

Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower 25(OH)D) for Rectal cancer: OR 0.50 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.88), 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

Colorectal cancer · Adults (general population)

Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower 1,25(OH)2D) for Colorectal cancer: OR 1.01 (95% CI 0.59 to 1.73), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Suggestive.

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 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

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

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

Small‐for‐gestational age · pregnant women and their infants..

Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower maternal 25(OH)D) for Small for gestational age: OR 0.54 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.67), 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

Pre‐eclampsia · pregnant women and their infants..

Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower maternal 25(OH)D) for Pre-eclampsia: OR 0.56 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.80), statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: No conclusion.

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

Head circumference (mm) · pregnant women and their infants..

Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower maternal 25(OH)D) for Head circumference: WMD 0.05 (95% CI -0.24 to 0.34), not 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

Birth length · pregnant women and their infants..

Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower maternal 25(OH)D) for Birth length: WMD 0.19 (95% CI -0.26 to 0.65), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Substantial effect unlikely.

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

Birthweight (g) · pregnant women and their infants..

Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower maternal 25(OH)D) for Birth weight: WMD 130.9 (95% CI 75.1 to 186.7), statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Probable.

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

Fasting blood glucose (mg/dL) · Adults with diabetes

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.

2 findings from 1 review

Vitamin D vs placebo or control

Femoral neck bone mineral density (FN-BMD) · Older or community-dwelling adults

Meta-analysis of randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation for Bone mineral density in femoral neck, Community-dwelling adults: WMD 1.10 (95% CI 0.40 to 1.90), statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Suggestive.

1 finding from 1 review

Vitamin D vs placebo or control

Lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) · Older or community-dwelling adults

Meta-analysis of randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation for Bone mineral density in lumbar spine, Community-dwelling adults: WMD 0.10 (95% CI -0.60 to 0.70), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Substantial effect unlikely.

1 finding from 1 review

Vitamin D vs placebo or control

Non‐vertebral fractures · Older or community-dwelling adults

Meta-analysis of randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation for Fractures: non-vertebral, People aged >65 years: RR 0.79 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.99), statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Suggestive.

1 finding from 1 review

Vitamin D vs placebo or control

Muscle strength · Older or community-dwelling adults

Meta-analysis of randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation for Performance measures: muscle strength, Older adults: SMD -0.19 (95% CI -0.35 to -0.02), statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Suggestive.

1 finding from 1 review

Vitamin D vs placebo or control

Fractures: non-vertebral, non-hip · Older or community-dwelling adults

Meta-analysis of randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation for Fractures: non-vertebral, non-hip, Older women: OR 0.69 (95% CI 0.21 to 1.66), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: No conclusion.

1 finding from 1 review

Vitamin D vs placebo or control

Diastolic blood pressure · Adults (general population)

Meta-analysis of randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation for Diastolic blood pressure: WMD -0.03 (95% CI -1.98 to 1.92), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Suggestive.

1 finding from 1 review

Vitamin D vs placebo or control

Gestational age at birth (weeks) · pregnant women

Meta-analysis of randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation for Mean gestational age at delivery: WMD 0.17 (95% CI -0.16 to 0.51), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: No conclusion.

1 finding from 1 review