Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

1,257 questions · 1,337 findings · 183 reviews

No studies found 175 · 13.1%GRADE not reported 212 · 15.9%Very low 286 · 21.4%Low 341 · 25.5%Moderate 254 · 19%High 69 · 5.2%

Vitamin D compounds (supplementation) vs placebo or control

Subperiosteal erosions · Adults with chronic kidney disease requiring dialysis

Meta-analysis of randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation for Subperiosteal erosions: RR 0.41 (95% CI 0.07 to 2.38), 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 not requiring dialysis

Meta-analysis of randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation for Mortality: RR 1.40 (95% CI 0.38 to 5.15), 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

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

Cardiovascular disease (prevalent) · Adults (general population)

Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower 25(OH)D) for Cardiovascular disease (prevalent): OR 0.67 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.82), statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Suggestive.

1 finding from 1 review

Vitamin D vs placebo or control

Small‐for‐gestational age · pregnant women

Meta-analysis of randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation for Small for gestational age: RR 0.67 (95% CI 0.40 to 1.11), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Suggestive.

1 finding from 1 review

Vitamin D compounds (supplementation) vs placebo or control

Creatinine clearance · Adults with chronic kidney disease not requiring dialysis

Meta-analysis of randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation for Creatinine clearance: WMD -1.68 (95% CI -6.92 to 3.56), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: No conclusion.

1 finding from 1 review

Vitamin D compounds (supplementation) vs placebo or control

Risk of hyperphosphataemia · Adults with chronic kidney disease requiring dialysis

Meta-analysis of randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation for Risk of hyperphosphataemia: RR 1.57 (95% CI 0.97 to 2.54), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: No conclusion.

1 finding from 1 review

Vitamin D compounds (supplementation) vs placebo or control

Fracture · Adults with chronic kidney disease requiring dialysis

Meta-analysis of randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation for Fractures: RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.06 to 15.41), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: No conclusion.

1 finding from 1 review

Vitamin D compounds (supplementation) vs placebo or control

Hypercalcaemia · Adults with chronic kidney disease not requiring dialysis

Meta-analysis of randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation for Risk of hypercalcaemia: RR 3.04 (95% CI 1.17 to 7.90), statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Suggestive.

1 finding from 1 review

Vitamin D vs placebo or control

Bone mineral density in forearm · children

Meta-analysis of randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation for Bone mineral density in forearm, Healthy children: SMD 0.04 (95% CI -0.36 to 0.45), 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

Tuberculosis · Participants in observational studies

The meta-analysis of observational studies reported a SMD (to OR) of 0.29 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.46) for higher versus lower circulating vitamin D concentration.

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

Vitamin D vs placebo or control

Fractures: vertebral or deformity · Older or community-dwelling adults

Meta-analysis of randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation for Fractures: vertebral or deformity, Men aged >65 years and postmenopausal women: RR 0.90 (95% CI 0.42 to 1.92), 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

Ovarian cancer · Adults (general population)

Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower 25(OH)D) for Ovarian cancer: OR 0.83 (95% CI 0.63 to 1.09), 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

Stroke · Adults (general population)

Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower 25(OH)D) for Stroke: RR 0.61 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.75), 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 · Participants in observational studies

The meta-analysis of observational studies reported a OR of 0.99 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.47) for higher versus lower circulating vitamin D concentration.

1 finding from 1 review

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

Colon cancer · Adults (general population)

Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower 25(OH)D) for Colon cancer: OR 0.78 (95% CI 0.56 to 1.07), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: No conclusion.

1 finding from 1 review