Non-Cochrane · umbrella · PM24690624
Vitamin D and multiple health outcomes: umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies and randomised trials.
Theodoratou Evropi, Tzoulaki Ioanna, Zgaga Lina, et al. · BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2014 · PubMed · doi:10.1136/bmj.g2035
Full textEvery question was extracted from the full text, figures and supplements by two independent LLM extractors, disagreements adjudicated. Rows cite where in the review the value comes from.
Questions
110
current version
GRADE rated
0
No studies
0
Included studies
55
linked below
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 110 · 100%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Review question
| Element | Planned (methods) | Found (results) |
|---|---|---|
| Population | Humans of any age or clinical setting, for associations between circulating vitamin D (25-hydroxyvitamin D or 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D) and any clinical outcome, or in randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation | Populations across 137 unique outcomes: general adults, children, pregnant women and their offspring, older adults, and patients with chronic kidney disease requiring or not requiring dialysis |
| Intervention | Higher circulating vitamin D concentration (observational); supplementation with vitamin D or active compounds, established or newer (randomised trials) | Higher circulating vitamin D (48 non-overlapping observational meta-analyses); vitamin D supplementation (57 non-overlapping randomised-trial meta-analyses) |
| Comparison | Lower circulating vitamin D concentration (observational); placebo or control (randomised trials) | Lower circulating vitamin D; placebo or control |
| Outcomes | Any clinical outcome, grouped as autoimmune, cancer, cardiovascular, cognitive, infectious, metabolic, neonatal/infant/child, pregnancy, skeletal (including falls), and other | 137 unique outcomes (fig 2); 30/48 (63%) observational and 13/57 (23%) randomised-trial meta-analyses nominally significant |
| Study designs | Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies; meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials | 107 systematic reviews (24 papers); 74 meta-analyses of observational studies (47 papers); 87 meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials (32 papers) |
| Timing | Not specified | Not specified |
Search date: 11 October 2013. Databases: Medline; Embase; screening of citations and references
Questions and results
Higher circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration vs Lower circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration
Population: Adults (general population)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Type 2 diabetes Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower 25(OH)D) for Type 2 diabetes: OR 0.63 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.69), statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Suggestive. Source: Table 2; Fig 3; Results · same question in other reviews | OR 0.63 [0.56, 0.69] | 16 studies · 72204 participants | Ungraded |
Ischaemic heart disease Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower 25(OH)D) for Ischaemic heart disease: HR 0.72 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.81), statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: No conclusion. Source: Table 1; Fig 3; Results · same question in other reviews | HR 0.72 [0.65, 0.81] | 19 studies · 82982 participants | Ungraded |
Metabolic syndrome (prevalent) Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower 25(OH)D) for Metabolic syndrome (prevalent): OR 0.49 (95% CI 0.38 to 0.64), statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Suggestive. Source: Table 2; Fig 3; Results · same question in other reviews | OR 0.49 [0.38, 0.64] | 8 studies · 31416 participants | Ungraded |
Cognition Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower 25(OH)D) for Cognition: OR 0.42 (95% CI 0.34 to 0.53), statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Suggestive. Source: Table 2; Fig 3; Results · same question in other reviews | OR 0.42 [0.34, 0.53] | 7 studies · 9004 participants | Ungraded |
Aggressive prostate cancer Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower 25(OH)D) for Aggressive prostate cancer: OR 0.98 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.15), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Substantial effect unlikely. Source: Table 1; Fig 3; Results · same question in other reviews | OR 0.98 [0.84, 1.15] | 6 studies · 4524 participants | Ungraded |
Cardiovascular disease mortality Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower 25(OH)D) for Cardiovascular disease mortality: RR 0.55 (95% CI 0.36 to 0.85), statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: No conclusion. Source: Table 1; Fig 3; Results · same question in other reviews | RR 0.55 [0.36, 0.85] | 5 studies · 24387 participants | Ungraded |
Stroke 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. Source: Table 1; Fig 3; Results · same question in other reviews | RR 0.61 [0.50, 0.75] | 7 studies · 39095 participants | Ungraded |
Hip fracture Hospital-based controls Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower 25(OH)D) for Hip fracture (Hospital-based controls): log ratio of geometric mean -0.26 (95% CI -0.33 to -0.23), statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: No conclusion. Source: Table 2; Results · same question in other reviews | log ratio of geometric mean -0.26 [-0.33, -0.23] | 8 studies · 2201 participants | Ungraded |
Cardiovascular disease 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. Source: Table 1; Fig 3; Results · same question in other reviews | RR 0.66 [0.57, 0.77] | 19 studies · 66488 participants | Ungraded |
Sporadic colorectal adenoma recurrence Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower 25(OH)D) for Sporadic colorectal adenoma recurrence: OR 0.87 (95% CI 0.57 to 1.33), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: No conclusion. Source: Table 1; Fig 3; Results · same question in other reviews | OR 0.87 [0.57, 1.33] | 3 studies · 1366 participants | Ungraded |
Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma Females Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower 25(OH)D) for Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (Females): OR 0.81 (95% CI 0.39 to 1.70), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: No conclusion. Source: Table 1; Fig 3; Results · same question in other reviews | OR 0.81 [0.39, 1.70] | 4 studies · 39 participants | Ungraded |
Cardiovascular disease (prevalent) 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. Source: Table 1; Fig 3; Results · same question in other reviews | OR 0.67 [0.55, 0.82] | 16 studies · 64722 participants | Ungraded |
Alzheimer’s disease Population: Participants in observational studies The meta-analysis of observational studies reported a SMD (to OR) of 0.08 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.63) for higher versus lower circulating vitamin D concentration. Source: Fig 3; Table 2 · same question in other reviews | SMD (to OR) 0.08 [0.01, 0.63] | 7 studies · 1005 participants | Ungraded |
Aggressive prostate cancer Population: Participants in observational studies The meta-analysis of observational studies reported a OR of 0.88 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.15) for higher versus lower circulating vitamin D concentration. Source: Fig 3; Table 1 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.98 [0.84, 1.15] | 6 studies · 4524 participants | Ungraded |
Ovarian cancer 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. Source: Table 1; Fig 3; Results · same question in other reviews | OR 0.83 [0.63, 1.09] | 10 studies · 2489 participants | Ungraded |
Colon cancer 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. Source: Table 1; Fig 3; Results · same question in other reviews | OR 0.78 [0.56, 1.07] | 10 studies · 4578 participants | Ungraded |
Colorectal cancer Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower 25(OH)D) for Colorectal cancer: RR 0.70 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.84), statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Suggestive. Source: Table 1; Fig 3; Results · same question in other reviews | RR 0.70 [0.58, 0.84] | 10 studies · 6712 participants | Ungraded |
Breast cancer Postmenopausal Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower 25(OH)D) for Breast cancer (Postmenopausal): RR 0.99 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.01), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Substantial effect unlikely. Source: Table 1; Fig 3; Results · same question in other reviews | RR 0.99 [0.97, 1.01] | 9 studies · 8766 participants | Ungraded |
Breast cancer Premenopausal Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower 25(OH)D) for Breast cancer (Premenopausal): RR 1.01 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.06), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Substantial effect unlikely. Source: Table 1; Fig 3; Results · same question in other reviews | RR 1.01 [0.97, 1.06] | 6 studies · 2890 participants | Ungraded |
Pancreatic cancer Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower 25(OH)D) for Pancreatic cancer: OR 2.13 (95% CI 1.02 to 4.47), statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: No conclusion. Source: Table 1; Fig 3; Results · same question in other reviews | OR 2.13 [1.02, 4.47] | 6 studies · 2113 participants | Ungraded |
Prostate cancer Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower 25(OH)D) for Prostate cancer: OR 1.04 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.09), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Substantial effect unlikely. Source: Table 1; Fig 3; Results · same question in other reviews | OR 1.04 [0.98, 1.09] | 14 studies · 28988 participants | Ungraded |
Hypertension Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower 25(OH)D) for Hypertension: RR 0.70 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.86), statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Suggestive. Source: Table 1; Fig 3; Results · same question in other reviews | RR 0.70 [0.58, 0.86] | 7 studies · 48633 participants | Ungraded |
Breast cancer Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower 25(OH)D) for Breast cancer: OR 0.55 (95% CI 0.42 to 0.71), statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: No conclusion. Source: Table 1; Fig 3; Results · same question in other reviews | OR 0.55 [0.42, 0.71] | 21 studies · 26317 participants | Ungraded |
Hip fracture Population-based controls Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower 25(OH)D) for Hip fracture (Population-based controls): log ratio of geometric mean -0.51 (95% CI -0.64 to -0.38), statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: No conclusion. Source: Table 2; Results · same question in other reviews | log ratio of geometric mean -0.51 [-0.64, -0.38] | 9 studies · 1655 participants | Ungraded |
Tuberculosis Population: 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. Source: Fig 3; Table 2 · same question in other reviews | SMD (to OR) 0.29 [0.19, 0.46] | 7 studies · 534 participants | Ungraded |
Depression Cohort studies 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. Source: Table 2; Fig 3; Results · same question in other reviews | HR 0.44 [0.27, 0.72] | 3 studies · 8815 participants | Ungraded |
Ischaemic stroke 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. Source: Table 1; Fig 3; Results · same question in other reviews | HR 0.66 [0.55, 0.80] | 4 studies · 26596 participants | Ungraded |
Ischaemic stroke 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. Source: Table 1; Fig 3; Results · same question in other reviews | OR 0.52 [0.44, 0.61] | 5 studies · 31858 participants | Ungraded |
Kidney cancer 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. Source: Table 1; Fig 3; Results · same question in other reviews | OR 1.01 [0.65, 1.58] | 6 studies · 1480 participants | Ungraded |
Fractures Population: 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. Source: Fig 3; Table 2 · same question in other reviews | SMD (to OR) 0.31 [0.23, 0.42] | 28 studies · 2956 participants | Ungraded |
Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma Males Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower 25(OH)D) for Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (Males): OR 0.65 (95% CI 0.35 to 1.23), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: No conclusion. Source: Table 1; Fig 3; Results · same question in other reviews | OR 0.65 [0.35, 1.23] | 6 studies · 65 participants | Ungraded |
Sporadic colorectal adenoma 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. Source: Table 1; Fig 3; Results · same question in other reviews | OR 0.82 [0.69, 0.97] | 9 studies · 6268 participants | Ungraded |
Body mass index 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. Source: Table 2; Results · same question in other reviews | Z score -0.15 [-0.19, -0.11] | 37 studies · 16525 participants | Ungraded |
All cause mortality (in CKD patients) Population: Participants in observational studies The meta-analysis of observational studies reported a RR of 0.88 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.93) for higher versus lower circulating vitamin D concentration. Source: Fig 3; Table 2 · same question in other reviews | RR 0.86 [0.81, 0.92] | 10 studies · 6853 participants | Ungraded |
Depression Case-control studies Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower 25(OH)D) for Depression (Case-control studies): OR 0.77 (95% CI 0.59 to 1.00), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: No conclusion. Source: Table 2; Fig 3; Results · same question in other reviews | OR 0.77 [0.59, 1.00] | 9 studies · 19807 participants | Ungraded |
Type 2 diabetes (prevalent) 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. Source: Table 2; Fig 3; Results · same question in other reviews | OR 0.45 [0.25, 0.82] | 9 studies · 11892 participants | Ungraded |
All cause mortality 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. Source: Table 2; Fig 3; Results · same question in other reviews | HR 0.72 [0.66, 0.78] | 18 studies · 77155 participants | Ungraded |
Rectal cancer 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. Source: Table 1; Fig 3; Results · same question in other reviews | OR 0.50 [0.29, 0.88] | 9 studies · 2050 participants | Ungraded |
Higher circulating 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (1,25(OH)2D) concentration vs Lower circulating 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (1,25(OH)2D) concentration
Population: Adults (general population)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Colorectal cancer 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. Source: Table 1; Fig 3; Results · same question in other reviews | OR 1.01 [0.59, 1.73] | 4 studies | Ungraded |
Breast cancer Population: 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. Source: Fig 3; Table 1 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.99 [0.68, 1.44] | 3 studies · 3627 participants | Ungraded |
Prostate cancer Population: Participants in observational studies The meta-analysis of observational studies reported a OR of 0.99 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.12) for higher versus lower circulating vitamin D concentration. Source: Fig 3; Table 1 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.99 [0.87, 1.14] | 7 studies · 3640 participants | Ungraded |
Colon cancer 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. Source: Table 1; Fig 3; Results · same question in other reviews | OR 0.88 [0.57, 1.35] | 4 studies | Ungraded |
Breast cancer 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. Source: Table 1; Fig 3; Results · same question in other reviews | OR 0.99 [0.68, 1.44] | 3 studies · 3627 participants | Ungraded |
Aggressive prostate cancer 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. Source: Table 1; Fig 3; Results · same question in other reviews | OR 0.75 [0.48, 1.17] | 2 studies · 1488 participants | Ungraded |
Prostate cancer 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. Source: Table 1; Fig 3; Results · same question in other reviews | OR 0.99 [0.87, 1.14] | 7 studies · 3640 participants | Ungraded |
Higher maternal circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration vs Lower maternal circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration
Population: Pregnant women and their offspring
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Pre-eclampsia 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. Source: Table 2; Fig 3; Results · same question in other reviews | OR 0.56 [0.39, 0.80] | 9 studies · 3230 participants | Ungraded |
Birth length 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. Source: Table 2; Results · same question in other reviews | WMD 0.19 [-0.26, 0.65] | 2 studies · 840 participants | Ungraded |
Birth weight 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. Source: Table 2; Results · same question in other reviews | WMD 130.9 [75.1, 186.7] | 4 studies · 5541 participants | Ungraded |
Small for gestational age 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. Source: Table 2; Fig 3; Results · same question in other reviews | OR 0.54 [0.44, 0.67] | 6 studies · 6851 participants | Ungraded |
Head circumference 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. Source: Table 2; Results · same question in other reviews | WMD 0.05 [-0.24, 0.34] | 2 studies · 840 participants | Ungraded |
Gestational diabetes 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. Source: Table 2; Fig 3; Results · same question in other reviews | OR 0.67 [0.53, 0.85] | 10 studies · 4112 participants | Ungraded |
Higher circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration vs Lower circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration
Population: Patients with chronic kidney disease
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
All cause mortality Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower 25(OH)D) for All cause mortality, Patients with chronic kidney disease: RR 0.86 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.92), statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: No conclusion. Source: Table 2; Fig 3; Results · same question in other reviews | RR 0.86 [0.81, 0.92] | 10 studies · 6853 participants | Ungraded |
Vitamin D supplementation vs Placebo or control
Population: Adults (general population)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Total cholesterol Meta-analysis of randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation for Total cholesterol: WMD 1.52 (95% CI -1.42 to 4.46), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: No conclusion. Source: Table 3; Results · same question in other reviews | WMD 1.52 [-1.42, 4.46] | 11 studies | Ungraded |
Mortality (all cause) Vitamin D3, general population Meta-analysis of randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation for Mortality (all cause) (Vitamin D3, general population): RR 0.91 (95% CI 0.82 to 1.02), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: No conclusion. Source: Table 3; Fig 4; Results · same question in other reviews | RR 0.91 [0.82, 1.02] | 9 studies · 12824 participants | Ungraded |
Diastolic blood pressure 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. Source: Table 3; Results · same question in other reviews | WMD -0.03 [-1.98, 1.92] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Mortality (all cause) Vitamin D2, general population Meta-analysis of randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation for Mortality (all cause) (Vitamin D2, general population): RR 1.04 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.11), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: No conclusion. Source: Table 3; Fig 4; Results · same question in other reviews | RR 1.04 [0.97, 1.11] | 8 studies · 17079 participants | Ungraded |
High density lipoprotein 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. Source: Table 3; Results · same question in other reviews | WMD -0.14 [-0.99, 0.71] | 8 studies | Ungraded |
Triglycerides 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. Source: Table 3; Results · same question in other reviews | WMD -1.92 [-7.72, 3.88] | 8 studies | Ungraded |
Low density lipoprotein 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. Source: Table 3; Results · same question in other reviews | WMD 3.23 [0.55, 5.9] | 7 studies | Ungraded |
Cardiovascular disease 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. Source: Table 3; Fig 4; Results · same question in other reviews | RR 0.95 [0.86, 1.05] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Systolic blood pressure 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. Source: Table 3; Results · same question in other reviews | WMD -2.39 [-5.7, 0.9] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Vitamin D supplementation vs Placebo or control
Population: Pregnant women
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Small for gestational age 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. Source: Table 3; Fig 4; Results · same question in other reviews | RR 0.67 [0.40, 1.11] | 2 studies · 305 participants | Ungraded |
Mean gestational age at delivery 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. Source: Table 3; Results · same question in other reviews | WMD 0.17 [-0.16, 0.51] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Preterm delivery Meta-analysis of randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation for Preterm delivery: RR 0.77 (95% CI 0.35 to 1.66), not statistically significant. Source: Table 3; Fig 4; Results · same question in other reviews | RR 0.77 [0.35, 1.66] | 2 studies · 529 participants | Ungraded |
Head circumference at birth Meta-analysis of randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation for Head circumference at birth: WMD 0.43 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.79), statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Suggestive. Source: Table 3; Results · same question in other reviews | WMD 0.43 [0.06, 0.79] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Low birth weight Meta-analysis of randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation for Low birth weight: RR 0.4 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.71), statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Probable. Source: Table 3; Fig 4; Results · same question in other reviews | RR 0.4 [0.23, 0.71] | 3 studies · 507 participants | Ungraded |
Birth length Meta-analysis of randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation for Birth length: WMD 0.97 (95% CI -0.41 to 2.34), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Substantial effect unlikely. Source: Table 3; Results · same question in other reviews | WMD 0.97 [-0.41, 2.34] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Maternal vitamin D concentrations at term Meta-analysis of randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation for Maternal vitamin D concentrations at term: WMD 47.08 (95% CI 23.76 to 70.39), statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Probable. Source: Table 3; Results · same question in other reviews | WMD 47.08 [23.76, 70.39] | 4 studies | Ungraded |
Vitamin D supplementation vs Placebo or control
Population: Children
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Bone mineral density in forearm 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. Source: Table 4; Results · same question in other reviews | SMD 0.04 [-0.36, 0.45] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Bone mineral density in lumbar spine Meta-analysis of randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation for Bone mineral density in lumbar spine, Healthy children: SMD 0.15 (95% CI -0.01 to 0.31), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: No conclusion. Source: Table 4; Results · same question in other reviews | SMD 0.15 [-0.01, 0.31] | 5 studies | Ungraded |
Bone mineral density Whole body / total Meta-analysis of randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation for Bone mineral density (Whole body / total), Healthy children: SMD 0.1 (95% CI -0.06 to 0.26), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Substantial effect unlikely. Source: Table 4; Results · same question in other reviews | SMD 0.1 [-0.06, 0.26] | 5 studies | Ungraded |
Bone mineral density in hip Meta-analysis of randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation for Bone mineral density in hip, Healthy children: SMD 0.06 (95% CI -0.18 to 0.29), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Substantial effect unlikely. Source: Table 4; Results · same question in other reviews | SMD 0.06 [-0.18, 0.29] | 4 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries Meta-analysis of randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation for Dental caries: RR 0.53 (95% CI 0.43 to 0.65), statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Probable. Source: Table 3; Fig 4; Results · same question in other reviews | RR 0.53 [0.43, 0.65] | 38 studies · 1513 participants | Ungraded |
Vitamin D supplementation vs Placebo or control
Population: Adults with diabetes
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Fasting glucose Diabetes patients with abnormal glucose tolerance Meta-analysis of randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation for Fasting glucose (Diabetes patients with abnormal glucose tolerance): WMD -0.3 (95% CI -0.9 to 0.3), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Substantial effect unlikely. Source: Table 3; Results · same question in other reviews | WMD -0.3 [-0.9, 0.3] | NR | Ungraded |
Fasting glucose Diabetes patients with normal glucose tolerance 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. Source: Table 3; Results · same question in other reviews | WMD 0.01 [-0.21, 0.23] | NR | Ungraded |
Insulin resistance Diabetes Meta-analysis of randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation for Insulin resistance (Diabetes): SMD 0.16 (95% CI -0.11 to 0.42), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: No conclusion. Source: Table 3; Results · same question in other reviews | SMD 0.16 [-0.11, 0.42] | 5 studies | Ungraded |
Vitamin D supplementation vs Placebo or control
Population: Older or community-dwelling adults
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Performance measures: muscle strength 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. Source: Table 4; Results · same question in other reviews | SMD -0.19 [-0.35, -0.02] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Fractures: non-vertebral, non-hip 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. Source: Table 4; Results · same question in other reviews | OR 0.69 [0.21, 1.66] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Performance measures: lower extremity strength Meta-analysis of randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation for Performance measures: lower extremity strength, Older adults: SMD 0.05 (95% CI -0.11 to 0.20), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Substantial effect unlikely. Source: Table 4; Results · same question in other reviews | SMD 0.05 [-0.11, 0.20] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Performance measures: balance sway Meta-analysis of randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation for Performance measures: balance sway, Older adults: SMD -0.20 (95% CI -0.39 to -0.01), statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Suggestive. Source: Table 4; Results · same question in other reviews | SMD -0.20 [-0.39, -0.01] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Bone mineral density in femoral neck 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. Source: Table 4; Results · same question in other reviews | WMD 1.10 [0.40, 1.90] | 8 studies | Ungraded |
Fractures: vertebral or deformity 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. Source: Table 4; Fig 4; Results · same question in other reviews | RR 0.90 [0.42, 1.92] | 5 studies · 9138 participants | Ungraded |
Bone mineral density in lumbar spine 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. Source: Table 4; Results · same question in other reviews | WMD 0.10 [-0.60, 0.70] | 7 studies | Ungraded |
Fractures: non-vertebral 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. Source: Table 4; Fig 4; Results · same question in other reviews | RR 0.79 [0.63, 0.99] | 5 studies · 7130 participants | Ungraded |
Falls 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. Source: Table 4; Results · same question in other reviews | OR 0.97 [0.84, 1.11] | 10 studies | Ungraded |
Fractures 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. Source: Table 4; Fig 4; Results · same question in other reviews | RR 1.01 [0.93, 1.09] | 10 studies · 25016 participants | Ungraded |
Bone mineral density in forearm 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. Source: Table 4; Results · same question in other reviews | WMD -0.70 [-1.70, 0.40] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Bone mineral density in hip Meta-analysis of randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation for Bone mineral density in hip, Community-dwelling adults: WMD 0.70 (95% CI -0.10 to 1.60), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: No conclusion. Source: Table 4; Results · same question in other reviews | WMD 0.70 [-0.10, 1.60] | 6 studies | Ungraded |
Fractures: hip Meta-analysis of randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation for Fractures: hip, Men aged >65 years and postmenopausal women: RR 1.15 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.33), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: No conclusion. Source: Table 4; Fig 4; Results · same question in other reviews | RR 1.15 [0.99, 1.33] | 9 studies · 24749 participants | Ungraded |
Falls: rate of falls Older people in care facilities or hospitals Meta-analysis of randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation for Falls: rate of falls (Older people in care facilities or hospitals): RaR 0.55 (95% CI 0.19 to 1.64), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: No conclusion. Source: Table 4; Results · same question in other reviews | RAR 0.55 [0.19, 1.64] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Bone mineral density Meta-analysis of randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation for Bone mineral density, Community-dwelling adults: WMD -0.9 (95% CI -2.10 to 0.40), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: No conclusion. Source: Table 4; Results · same question in other reviews | WMD -0.9 [-2.10, 0.40] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Falls: rate of falls Older people in the community Meta-analysis of randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation for Falls: rate of falls (Older people in the community): RaR 1.14 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.27), statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Suggestive. Source: Table 4; Results · same question in other reviews | RAR 1.14 [1.03, 1.27] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Vitamin D compounds (supplementation) vs Placebo or control
Population: Adults with chronic kidney disease not requiring dialysis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Creatinine clearance 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. Source: Table 3; Results · same question in other reviews | WMD -1.68 [-6.92, 3.56] | 4 studies | Ungraded |
Risk of hypercalcaemia 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. Source: Table 3; Fig 4; Results · same question in other reviews | RR 3.04 [1.17, 7.90] | 7 studies · 612 participants | Ungraded |
Risk of requiring dialysis Meta-analysis of randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation for Risk of requiring dialysis: RR 0.76 (95% CI 0.36 to 1.62), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: No conclusion. Source: Table 3; Fig 4; Results · same question in other reviews | RR 0.76 [0.36, 1.62] | 4 studies · 245 participants | Ungraded |
Mortality 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. Source: Table 3; Fig 4; Results · same question in other reviews | RR 1.40 [0.38, 5.15] | 4 studies · 381 participants | Ungraded |
Parathyroid hormone Meta-analysis of randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation for Parathyroid hormone: WMD -49.34 (95% CI -85.70 to -12.97), statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Suggestive. Source: Table 3; Results · same question in other reviews | WMD -49.34 [-85.70, -12.97] | 4 studies | Ungraded |
Alkaline phosphatase Meta-analysis of randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation for Alkaline phosphatase: WMD -21.81 (95% CI -40.39 to 3.22), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: No conclusion. Source: Table 3; Results · same question in other reviews | WMD -21.81 [-40.39, 3.22] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Risk of hyperphosphataemia Meta-analysis of randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation for Risk of hyperphosphataemia: RR 1.58 (95% CI 0.47 to 5.30), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: No conclusion. Source: Table 3; Fig 4; Results · same question in other reviews | RR 1.58 [0.47, 5.30] | 2 studies · 245 participants | Ungraded |
Vitamin D compounds (supplementation) vs Placebo or control
Population: Adults with chronic kidney disease requiring dialysis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Risk of hypercalcaemia Meta-analysis of randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation for Risk of hypercalcaemia: RR 3.80 (95% CI 0.90 to 16.12), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: No conclusion. Source: Table 3; Fig 4; Results · same question in other reviews | RR 3.80 [0.90, 16.12] | 5 studies · 382 participants | Ungraded |
Subperiosteal erosions 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. Source: Table 3; Fig 4; Results · same question in other reviews | RR 0.41 [0.07, 2.38] | 3 studies · 120 participants | Ungraded |
Risk of hyperphosphataemia 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. Source: Table 3; Fig 4; Results · same question in other reviews | RR 1.57 [0.97, 2.54] | 2 studies · 59 participants | Ungraded |
Parathyroid hormone Meta-analysis of randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation for Parathyroid hormone: WMD -196.05 (95% CI -298.43 to -93.66), statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Probable. Source: Table 3; Results · same question in other reviews | WMD -196.05 [-298.43, -93.66] | 6 studies | Ungraded |
Fractures 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. Source: Table 4; Results · same question in other reviews | RR 1.00 [0.06, 15.41] | 4 studies | Ungraded |
Mortality 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. Source: Table 3; Fig 4; Results · same question in other reviews | RR 1.34 [0.34, 5.24] | 5 studies · 477 participants | Ungraded |
Vascular calcification 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. Source: Table 3; Fig 4; Results · same question in other reviews | RR 1.09 [0.45, 2.67] | 2 studies · 128 participants | Ungraded |
Alkaline phosphatase 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. Source: Table 3; Results · same question in other reviews | WMD -27.35 [-50.69, -4.01] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Parathyroidectomy Meta-analysis of randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation for Parathyroidectomy: RR 0.82 (95% CI 0.05 to 12.47), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: No conclusion. Source: Table 3; Fig 4; Results · same question in other reviews | RR 0.82 [0.05, 12.47] | 2 studies · 233 participants | Ungraded |
Bone pain Meta-analysis of randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation for Bone pain: RR 0.29 (95% CI 0.03 to 2.63), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: No conclusion. Source: Table 4; Fig 4; Results · same question in other reviews | RR 0.29 [0.03, 2.63] | 4 studies · 109 participants | Ungraded |
Vitamin D supplementation vs Control
Population: Community dwelling adults
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Bone mineral density in forearm The meta-analysis of RCTs reported a WMD of -0.70 (95% CI 1.70 to 0.40) for vitamin d supplementation versus control. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | WMD -0.70 [-1.70, 0.40] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Included primary studies 55
Open as a trial list| Study | Also included by | Outcomes it informs here | Trial PICO | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Afzal 2013 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Aghajafari 2013 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Anglin 2013 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Annweiler 2013 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Antico 2012 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Avenell 2009 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Barnard 2010 Novel human pathological mutations. Gene symbol: NR0B1. Disease: Adrenal Hypoplasia. PMID:20108433 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Bauer 2013 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Bergman 2010 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Bischoff-Ferrari 2009 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Bjelakovic 2011 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Brondum-Jacobsen 2012 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Brondum-Jacobsen 2013 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Buttigliero 2011 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Cameron 2012 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Chen 2010 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Chen 2013 Osteoarthritis: mRNA decay in OA. PMID:25201381 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Christesen 2012 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Chung 2009 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Cook 2010 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Cranney 2007 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| De-Regil 2012 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Dolinsky 2013 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Etgen 2012 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Gallicchio 2010 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| George 2012 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Gilbert 2011 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Gillespie 2012 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Grandi 2010 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Hujoel 2013 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Jolliffe 2013 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Kelly 2009 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Kriegel 2011 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Kunutsor 2013 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Muir 2011 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Murad 2011 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Myung 2013 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Nnoaham 2008 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Palmer 2009 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Parker 2010 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Pilz 2011 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Pittas 2010 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Purdue 2010 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Reid 2014 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Renzaho 2011 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Sakthiswary 2013 Scintigraphic visualization of myocardial infarcts in baboons using thallium-201 and technetium-99m pyrophosphate. PMID:201381 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Saneei 2013 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Song 2012 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Stolzenberg-Solomon 2010 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Thorne-Lyman 2012 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Wang 2012 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Wang 2012 Gas-phase bioconjugation of peptides via ion/ion charge inversion: Schiff base formation on the conversion of cations to anions. PMID:20121142 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Weatherall 2000 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Winzenberg 2011 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Yaghjyan 2012 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |