Cited by 100Vitamin D Research StudiesFatty Acid Research and HealthNutritional Studies and Diet

Efficacy of fish intake on Vitamin D status: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Open access
Lehmann, Ulrike, Gjessing, Hanne Rosendahl, Hirche, Frank, Mueller-Belecke, Andreas, Gudbrandsen, Oddrun Anita, Ueland, Per Magne, Mellgren, Gunnar, Lauritzen, Lotte +6 more·2015·The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

Abstract

Background It is well known that fish is the major natural source of vitamin D in the diet; therefore, this meta-analysis investigated the influence of fish consumption in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] concentrations.Objective A literature search was carried out in Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library (up to February 2014) for RCTs that investigated the effect of fish consumption on 25(OH)D concentrations in comparison to other dietary interventions.Results Seven articles and 2 unpublished study data sets with 640 subjects and 14 study groups met the inclusion criteria and were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with controls, the consumption of fish increased 25(OH)D concentrations, on average, by 4.4 nmol/L (95% CI: 1.7, 7.1 nmol/L; P < 0.0001, I(2) = 25%; 9 studies).The type of the fish also played a key role: the consumption of fatty fish resulted in a mean difference of 6.8 nmol/L (95% CI: 3.7, 9.9 nmol/L; P < 0.0001, I(2) = 0%; 7 study groups), whereas for lean fish the mean difference was 1.9 nmol/L (95% CI: -2.3, 6.0 nmol/L; P < 0.38, I(2) = 37%; 7 study groups). Short-term studies (4-8 wk) showed a mean difference of 3.8 nmol/L (95% CI: 0.6, 6.9 nmol/L; P < 0.02, I(2) = 38%; 10 study groups), whereas in long-term studies (∼6 mo) the mean difference was 8.3 nmol/L (95% CI: 2.1, 14.5 nmol/L; P < 0.009, I(2) = 0%; 4 study groups).Conclusion As the major food source of vitamin D, fish consumption increases concentrations of 25(OH)D, although recommended fish intakes cannot optimize vitamin D status.

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 · 10.3945/ajcn.114.105395

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 56 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Cochrane Handbook, chapter 16.1.3.2. Imputing standard deviations for changes from baseline [cited 2014 Sep 13]. Available from: http:// handbook.cochrane.org/chapter_16/16_1_3_2_imputing_standard_ deviations_for_changes_from_baseline.htm.
  2. Cochrane Handbook, chapter 16.5.4. Including multiple groups from one study [cited 2014 Sep 13]. Available from: http://handbook.co- chrane.org/chapter_16/16_5_4_how_to_include_multiple_groups_ from_one_study.htm.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lehmann, U., Gjessing, H. R., Hirche, F., Mueller-Belecke, A., Gudbrandsen, O. A., Ueland, P. M., Mellgren, G., Lauritzen, L., Lindqvist, H., Hansen, A. L., Erkkilä, A. T., Pot, G. K., Stangl, G. I., & Dierkes, J.
Affiliations
  • Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg (DE)
  • Bevital (Norway) (NO)
  • University of Copenhagen (DK)
  • University of Gothenburg (SE)
  • University of Bergen (NO)
  • University of Eastern Finland (FI)
  • King's College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Dierkes, Jutta
Venue
The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-10
Volume
102
Issue
4
Pages
837-847
ISSN
0002-9165 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2174981338
Cited by
100
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 1
FWCI
1.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
  • Chalmers Research (Chalmers University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (01EA1323A)
  • The Research Council of Norway (227506/F11)
  • Bergen Medical Research Foundation
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Vitamin D Research Studies
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Fatty Acid Research and Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Nutritional Studies and Diet
Keywords
fish consumption, vitamin D status, 25-hydroxyvitamin D, dietary intervention, fatty fish, lean fish, serum vitamin D levels, dietary sources of vitamin D
MeSH terms
Animals, Diet, Fishes, Humans, Nutritional Status, Risk Factors, Vitamin D, Vitamin D Deficiency, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Databases, Factual, Seafood

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