Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 631

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Vitamin D and risk of cause specific death: systematic review and meta-analysis of observational cohort and randomised intervention studies

Open access
Chowdhury, R., Kunutsor, S., Vitezova, A., Oliver-Williams, C., Chowdhury, S., Kiefte-de-Jong, J. C., Khan, H., Baena, C. P., Prabhakaran, D., Hoshen, M. B., Feldman, B. S., Pan, A., Johnson, L., Crowe, F., Hu, F. B., Franco, O. H.·2014·BMJ
DOI 10.1136/bmj.g1903
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the extent to which circulating biomarker and supplements of vitamin D are associated with mortality from cardiovascular, cancer, or other conditions, under various circumstances. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies and randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and reference lists of relevant studies to August 2013; correspondance with investigators. STUDY SELECTION: Observational cohort studies and randomised controlled trials in adults, which reported associations between vitamin D (measured as circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration or vitamin D supplement given singly) and cause specific mortality outcomes. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted by two independent investigators, and a consensus was reached with involvement of a third. Study specific relative risks from 73 cohort studies (849,412 participants) and 22 randomised controlled trials (vitamin D given alone versus placebo or no treatment; 30,716 participants) were meta-analysed using random effects models and were grouped by study and population characteristics. RESULTS: In the primary prevention observational studies, comparing bottom versus top thirds of baseline circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D distribution, pooled relative risks were 1.35 (95% confidence interval 1.13 to 1.61) for death from cardiovascular disease, 1.14 (1.01 to 1.29) for death from cancer, 1.30 (1.07 to 1.59) for non-vascular, non-cancer death, and 1.35 (1.22 to 1.49) for all cause mortality. Subgroup analyses in the observational studies indicated that risk of mortality was significantly higher in studies with lower baseline use of vitamin D supplements. In randomised controlled trials, relative risks for all cause mortality were 0.89 (0.80 to 0.99) for vitamin D3 supplementation and 1.04 (0.97 to 1.11) for vitamin D2 supplementation. The effects observed for vitamin D3 supplementation remained unchanged when grouped by various characteristics. However, for vitamin D2 supplementation, increased risks of mortality were observed in studies with lower intervention doses and shorter average intervention periods. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from observational studies indicates inverse associations of circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D with risks of death due to cardiovascular disease, cancer, and other causes. Supplementation with vitamin D3 significantly reduces overall mortality among older adults; however, before any widespread supplementation, further investigations will be required to establish the optimal dose and duration and whether vitamin D3 and D2 have different effects on mortality risk.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.g1903

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 13 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Chowdhury, R., Kunutsor, S., Vitezova, A., Oliver-Williams, C., Chowdhury, S., Kiefte-de-Jong, J. C., Khan, H., Baena, C. P., Prabhakaran, D., Hoshen, M. B., Feldman, B. S., Pan, A., Johnson, L., Crowe, F., Hu, F. B., & Franco, O. H.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2014-04-01
Volume
348
Issue
apr01 2
Pages
g1903-g1903
ISSN
1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1136/bmj.g1903
OpenAlex
W2114217792
Cited by
631
References
13
FWCI
13.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.