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
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
WMD -0.14 [-0.99, 0.71]
8 studies
GRADE not reported
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
OR 0.88 [0.57, 1.35]
4 studies
GRADE not reported
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
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
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
Serum low‐density lipoprotein (LDL, mmol/L) · Adults (general population)
Meta-analysis of randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation for Low density lipoprotein: WMD 3.23 (95% CI 0.55 to 5.9), statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Suggestive.
1 finding from 1 review
WMD 3.23 [0.55, 5.9]
7 studies
GRADE not reported
CVD · Adults (general population)
Meta-analysis of randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation for Cardiovascular disease: RR 0.95 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.05), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Suggestive.
1 finding from 1 review
RR 0.95 [0.86, 1.05]
2 studies
GRADE not reported
Body‐mass index (BMI) · Adults (general population)
Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower 25(OH)D) for Body mass index: Z score -0.15 (95% CI -0.19 to -0.11), statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Suggestive.
1 finding from 1 review
Sporadic colorectal adenoma · Adults (general population)
Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower 25(OH)D) for Sporadic colorectal adenoma: OR 0.82 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.97), statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: No conclusion.
1 finding from 1 review
Systolic blood pressure · Adults (general population)
Meta-analysis of randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation for Systolic blood pressure: WMD -2.39 (95% CI -5.7 to 0.9), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Suggestive.
1 finding from 1 review
WMD -2.39 [-5.7, 0.9]
3 studies
GRADE not reported
Type 2 diabetes (prevalent) · Adults (general population)
Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower 25(OH)D) for Type 2 diabetes (prevalent): OR 0.45 (95% CI 0.25 to 0.82), statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: No conclusion.
1 finding from 1 review
All cause mortality · Adults (general population)
Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower 25(OH)D) for All cause mortality: HR 0.72 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.78), statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: No conclusion.
1 finding from 1 review
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
Oral cancer mortality (disease-specific) · Apparently healthy adults aged 35 years or older (general population), living in 13 clusters in rural areas of Trivandrum city, Kerala,…
Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers showed no clear difference in oral cancer mortality (disease-specific) compared with no screening (low certainty).
2 findings from 1 review
Costs · Apparently healthy adults aged 35 years or older (general population), living in 13 clusters in rural areas of Trivandrum city, Kerala,…
1 finding from 1 review
Harms of screening (false-positive/false-negative outcomes) · Apparently healthy adults aged 35 years or older (general population), living in 13 clusters in rural areas of Trivandrum city, Kerala,…
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
No harms were reported.
0 studies
No studies found
Oral cancer incidence · Apparently healthy adults aged 35 years or older (general population), living in 13 clusters in rural areas of Trivandrum city, Kerala,…
Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers showed no clear difference in oral cancer incidence compared with no screening; GRADE not reported.
2 findings from 1 review
Stage at diagnosis (early-stage detection) · Apparently healthy adults aged 35 years or older (general population), living in 13 clusters in rural areas of Trivandrum city, Kerala,…
Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers led to lower stage at diagnosis (early-stage detection) compared with no screening; GRADE not reported.
2 findings from 1 review
Quality of life · Apparently healthy adults aged 35 years or older (general population), living in 13 clusters in rural areas of Trivandrum city, Kerala,…
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review