ReviewDiseases (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Vitamin D and Vitamin B
Review in Diseases (Basel, Switzerland), 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesEvidence linking vitamins D and B
methodsWe conducted a PRISMA 2020 systematic review and exploratory meta-analysis of nutrient-specific status and supplementation evidence. PubMed/MEDLINE, APA PsycInfo, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ProQuest were searched for human studies published in 2016-2025, with a final update on 1 March 2026. Forty-six studies were included (24 randomized controlled trials, 22 observational studies;
resultsAcross the main evidence families, pooled estimates showed substantial heterogeneity and limited generalizability. Vitamin D supplementation showed an initial inverse estimate on the secondary harmonized OR scale (OR = 0.439, 95% CI 0.272-0.710) and a clinically interpretable SMD of -0.454 (95% CI -0.718 to -0.189), but heterogeneity was high (
conclusionsThe evidence supports targeted deficiency assessment, not routine supplementation.
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.