Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39125269›Full record

ReviewNutrients2024

When and How to Evaluate Vitamin D Status? A Viewpoint from the Belgian Bone Club.

Bruno Lapauw, Michaël R Laurent, Serge Rozenberg, Jean-Jacques Body, Olivier Bruyère, Evelien Gielen, Stefan Goemaere, Laura Iconaru, Etienne Cavalier

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nutrients, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Vitamin DFrontiers in immunology · 2026
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Bruno LapauwDepartment of Endocrinology, Unit for Osteoporosis and Metabolic Bone Diseases, Ghent University Hospital, 9052 Ghent, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-1584-4965
Michaël R LaurentGeriatrics Department, Imelda Hospital, 2820 Bonheiden, Belgium.
Serge RozenbergDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, CHU St Pierre, Brussels & Université Libre de Bruxelles, 1000 Bruxelles, Belgium.
Jean-Jacques BodyDepartment of Medicine, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, 1020 Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-9165-1444
Olivier BruyèreWHO Collaborating Center for Public Health Aspects of Musculoskeletal Health and Ageing, Research Unit in Public Health, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Department of Sport and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Liège, 4000 Liège, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0003-4269-9393
Evelien GielenCentre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University Hospitals Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-8985-1201
Stefan GoemaereDepartment of Endocrinology, Unit for Osteoporosis and Metabolic Bone Diseases, Ghent University Hospital, 9052 Ghent, Belgium.
Laura IconaruDepartment of Medicine, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, 1020 Brussels, Belgium.
Etienne CavalierDepartment of Clinical Chemistry, University of Liège, CIRM, CHU de Liège, 4000 Liège, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Low serum vitamin D levels have been associated with a variety of health conditions which has led the medical community but also the general population to evaluate vitamin D status quite liberally. Nevertheless, there remain questions about the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of such a broad and untargeted approach. This review therefore aims to summarize the current evidence and recommendations on when and how to evaluate vitamin D status in human health and disease. For the general population, most guidelines do not recommend universal screening but suggest a targeted approach in populations at risk. Also, some guidelines do not even recommend evaluating vitamin D status when vitamin D substitution is indicated anyway, such as in children or patients receiving anti-osteoporosis drugs. In those guidelines that recommend the screening of vitamin D status, serum 25(OH)D levels are universally proposed as the preferred screening tool. However, little attention is given to analytical considerations and almost no guidelines discuss the timing and frequency of screening. Finally, there is the known variability in diagnostic thresholds for defining vitamin D insufficiency and deficiency. Overall, the existing guidelines on the evaluation of vitamin D status differ broadly in screening strategy and screening implementation, and none of these guidelines discusses alternative screening modes, for instance, the vitamin metabolic ratio. Efforts to harmonize these different guidelines are needed to enhance their efficacy and cost-effectiveness.

Indexed as

Vitamin DVitamin D DeficiencyBelgiumCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansMass ScreeningNutritional StatusPractice Guidelines as Topic25-hydroxyvitamin DVitamin Dcost-effectivenessscreening guidelinesvitamin D

Identifiers

PMID39125269
PMCPMC11313844

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.