SynthesisJournal of translational medicine2026
Vitamin D and melanoma: an umbrella meta-analysis of serum levels, dietary intake, and VDR polymorphisms.
Synthesis in Journal of translational medicine, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundVitamin D regulates immune function, cell proliferation, and differentiation, and may inhibit carcinogenesis. Both serum vitamin D levels and genetic variations in the vitamin D receptor (VDR) gene have been linked to melanoma, but findings are inconsistent. This umbrella meta-analysis critically appraised existing evidence on vitamin D intake, serum concentration, and six VDR polymorphisms (FokI, BsmI, TaqI, ApaI, EcoRV, Cdx2) in relation to melanoma risk.
methodsPubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched to November 2025 for meta-analyses examining vitamin D intake, serum concentration, or VDR polymorphisms and melanoma risk in adults. Eligible studies reported relative risks (RR) or odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Methodological quality was assessed using AMSTAR 2. Pooled effect sizes were calculated using a random-effects model.
resultsNine eligible meta-analyses comprising 63 datasets were included. The FokI polymorphism was significantly associated with increased melanoma risk (RR: 1.14; 95% CI: 1.10–1.18), whereas the BsmI polymorphism was associated with decreased risk (RR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.81–0.93). No significant associations were observed for TaqI, ApaI, EcoRV, or Cdx2 polymorphisms. No significant associations were observed for serum vitamin D concentration or dietary vitamin D intake in relation to melanoma risk. Study quality ranged from critically low to high, with only two meta-analyses meeting high-quality criteria.
conclusionThis umbrella meta-analysis suggests that the VDR FokI polymorphism is associated with an increased risk of melanoma, whereas the BsmI polymorphism may confer a protective association. No significant associations were observed for TaqI, ApaI, EcoRV, or Cdx2 polymorphisms. However, the overall certainty of the evidence is limited by the generally low methodological quality of the included meta-analyses, necessitating cautious interpretation of these findings. Further well-designed, large-scale studies across diverse populations are required to validate these associations and clarify their clinical relevance.
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.