ArticleCureus2026
Vitamin D Deficiency in the Pregnant Population at University Hospital Birmingham: Does It Justify Universal Screening?
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVitamin D deficiency is a growing global health concern, particularly among pregnant women, due to its associations with adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. Birmingham represents a unique high-risk population with substantial ethnic diversity and socioeconomic deprivation, both of which may predispose to low vitamin D levels. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of vitamin D deficiency among pregnant women attending antenatal care at a large tertiary hospital and to evaluate whether risk-based screening adequately identifies deficient individuals.
methodsThis retrospective observational study included pregnant women who underwent serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) testing at University Hospital Birmingham between January and December 2022. A total of 2,757 records were reviewed to determine the overall prevalence. A randomly selected cohort of 300 women (100 normal, 100 mildly deficient, and 100 severely deficient) with complete clinical data was used to evaluate demographic and clinical risk factors. Vitamin D status was categorized according to the UK Public Health/National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) criteria. Statistical analyses included one-sample t-tests and chi-squared tests, with p < 0.05 considered significant.
resultsAmong 2,757 women tested, 1,701 (61.7%) had insufficient or deficient vitamin D levels, significantly exceeding the 60% threshold (p = 0.034). Severe deficiency (<25 nmol/L) was present in 634 women (23%), also significantly higher than the hypothesized 21% prevalence (p = 0.006). In the 300-patient comparison cohort, the mean age was 29.94 ± 6.73 years, and the mean body mass index (BMI) was 29.33 ± 7.72 kg/m². Distribution of age, BMI, ethnicity, deprivation index, and comorbidities did not differ significantly across vitamin D categories, with all p-values > 0.05. No traditional risk factor showed a significant association with vitamin D status. Parity was the only variable significantly associated with vitamin D status (p = 0.002).
conclusionVitamin D deficiency is highly prevalent among pregnant women in this ethnically diverse Birmingham population. Most classical risk factors did not reliably predict deficiency, although multiparity emerged as a significant contributor. Given the high burden of deficiency, low cost of testing, and limited discriminatory value of existing risk-based criteria, universal vitamin D screening at booking may be justified. Further prospective studies are needed to evaluate the impact of universal testing and targeted supplementation on maternal and neonatal outcomes.
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.