SynthesisBMC nutrition2025
The health outcomes of vitamin D supplementation in Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC nutrition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Intersections of vitamin D deficiency, HIV and chronic liver diseases.HIV medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVitamin D supplementation is essential for health, yet its full benefits and optimal use remain incompletely understood, particularly given the global prevalence of deficiency, which affects around 50% of the population, with higher rates in high-latitude regions and among individuals with darker skin. This systematic review synthesizes evidence on the health outcomes of vitamin D supplementation in Africa, addressing gaps in regional and demographic-specific research.
methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, Epistemonikos, and Google Scholar, limited to English-language publications without date restrictions. Two independent reviewers evaluated study eligibility, data quality, and risk of bias. The findings were reported in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, employing narrative synthesis and meta-analyses to compare the effects of vitamin D supplementation against control groups. Heterogeneity and publication bias were assessed using Egger's regression and Q statistics.
resultsThe review included 14 randomized controlled trials from 9 African countries, involving 11,259 participants. Half of the studies reported health benefits associated with vitamin D supplementation. Meta-analysis of seven studies demonstrated significant increases in serum vitamin D levels (odds ratio = 6.78, p < 0.001) and reduced viral load in patients with human immunodeficiency virus (odds ratio = 1.63, p = 0.033). However, supplementation did not significantly affect weight gain (odds ratio = 1.1, p = 0.18) or mortality rates in patients with tuberculosis and human immunodeficiency virus (odds ratio = 0.971, p = 0.638). Improvements in disease symptoms and biochemical markers were observed (odds ratio = 2.28, p = 0.028), with no significant heterogeneity or publication bias. Subgroup analysis was constrained by the diversity of diseases and insufficient studies.
conclusionsVitamin D supplementation showed significant benefits in half of the studies, elevating serum levels and reducing viral load in HIV patients. However, it did not affect weight gain or mortality in TB and HIV patients. While symptom and biomarker improvements were noted, further research is needed to explore subgroup effects and optimize strategies.
trial registrationPROSPERO registration number CRD42024620729.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.