↓ Skip to main content

Vitamin D: A Narrative Review Examining the Evidence for Ten Beliefs

Overview of attention for article published in JGIM: Journal of General Internal Medicine, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#41 of 4,713)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
25 news outlets
blogs
5 blogs
twitter
77 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
96 Mendeley
Title
Vitamin D: A Narrative Review Examining the Evidence for Ten Beliefs
Published in
JGIM: Journal of General Internal Medicine, March 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11606-016-3645-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

G. Michael Allan, Lynda Cranston, Adrienne Lindblad, James McCormack, Michael R. Kolber, Scott Garrison, Christina Korownyk

Abstract

Over the past decade, a large body of observational evidence has suggested an association between lower vitamin D status (25-hydroxyvitamin D) and multiple acute and chronic disorders, including cancer, multiple sclerosis, depression and respiratory tract infections. This evidence has fostered the hypothesis that increasing vitamin D intake may treat and prevent such disorders. Our objective was to perform a critical analysis of the highest-level evidence for ten common beliefs regarding vitamin D for the prevention of falls, fractures and respiratory tract infections, the reduction of cancer incidence/mortality and overall mortality, and the prevention or treatment of depression/mental well-being, rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis, as well as maximum dosing and regular testing. We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and PubMed (up to August 2014) for randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews/meta-analyses based on those studies. All searches were performed, all evidence reviewed and each section written by at least two authors. The evidence shows that vitamin D supplementation provides some benefit in fracture prevention (likely ∼10-15 % relative reduction), particularly at a dose ≥800 IU and with calcium; a likely benefit in the rate of falls, though it is less clear whether the number of fallers changes; and a possible small (∼5 %) relative reduction in mortality. Evidence does not support the use of vitamin D supplementation for the prevention of cancer, respiratory infections or rheumatoid arthritis. Similarly, evidence does not support vitamin D supplementation for the treatment of multiple sclerosis and rheumatoid arthritis or for improving depression/mental well-being. Regular testing of 25-hydroxyvitamin D is generally not required, and mega-doses (≥300,000 IU) appear to increase harms. Much of the evidence is at high risk of bias, with multiple flaws, including analyses of secondary endpoints, small and underpowered studies, inconsistent results and numerous other issues. Therefore, enthusiasm for a vitamin D panacea should be tempered.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 77 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 2%
Mexico 1 1%
Unknown 93 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 18 19%
Unspecified 16 17%
Student > Master 14 15%
Researcher 11 11%
Student > Postgraduate 9 9%
Other 28 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 38%
Unspecified 21 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 6%
Psychology 4 4%
Other 15 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 274. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 July 2019.
All research outputs
#42,728
of 13,249,240 outputs
Outputs from JGIM: Journal of General Internal Medicine
#41
of 4,713 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,619
of 267,368 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JGIM: Journal of General Internal Medicine
#3
of 93 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,249,240 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,713 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 267,368 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 93 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.