Evidence Hub

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

Rajiv Chowdhury, Setor K. Kunutsor, Anna Vitezova, Clare Oliver‐Williams, S. Chowdhury, Jessica C. Kiefte–de Jong, Hassan Khan, Cristina Pellegrino Baena et al.

BMJ, 2014

849,412 participants · 641 citations

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,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 849,412 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free