ReviewFrontiers in endocrinology2026
Vitamin D in the UK: an urgent call to redefine the threshold for deficiency.
Review in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2026. 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.
- Article
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
ACT NOW Vitamin D is a multidisciplinary collective tackling persistent public health concerns in the UK, including widespread vitamin D deficiency, nutritional rickets in children, and osteomalacia across the lifespan. National Diet and Nutrition Survey data show significant declines in vitamin D intake - especially among lower intake percentiles - and rising rates of severe vitamin D deficiency (serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D <25 nmol/L) among people aged 4-64 years. Contributing factors include reduced meat, fish and seafood consumption, increasing obesity, and growing high-risk ethnic minority population groups. However, the current UK biochemical definition of vitamin D deficiency (<25 nmol/L), as defined by the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN 2016), may underestimate the broader scale of population risk and obscure the clinical burden described above. This position statement therefore makes the case for UK policymakers to adopt a higher threshold for vitamin D deficiency than the current <25 nmol/L recommended by SACN 2016. Raising the threshold to <50 nmol/L would bring the UK into closer alignment with international and clinical practice frameworks and may enable a broader and preventive approach to surveillance of national vitamin D status. Such reclassification would also provide a stronger evidential basis for policy review aimed at improving population-level "Vitamin D Health".
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.