Vitamin D status and ill health: a systematic review.

By P. Autier, M. Boniol, C. Pizot, P. Mullie. The Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology, 2014

1,067 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

ESPEN practical guideline: Clinical Nutrition in cancer. (2021, result): “Other systematic reviews arrived at a similar conclusion [15].”
Vitamin D: Metabolism, Molecular Mechanism of Action, and Pleiotropic Effects. (2016, background): “cal activity, lower food intake, or systemic effects of the cancer itself (26, 175, 176, 182, 244).”
ESPEN guidelines on nutrition in cancer patients. (2017, neutral): “Another recent systematic review arrived at a similar conclusion [136].”
Vitamin D supplementation guidelines. (2018, background): “They also claim that conducting randomized controlled trials (RCTs) searching for vitamin D-dependent health outcomes is futile [4], but their metaanalyses were far from satisfactory because of the bias of selection of studies.”
Vitamin D: An overview of vitamin D status and intake in Europe (2014, background): “However, whether low 25(OH)D is the cause or result of ill health is not yet clear (Autier et al. 2014).”
Solar Ultraviolet Radiation in a Changing Climate (2014, neutral): “An alternative explanation is that low vitamin D status is a marker of ill health, rather than a cause of it 93 or that measured vitamin D status is a proxy for non-vitamin D benefits of sun exposure 94 .”