Published 28 October 2009, doi:10.1136/bmj.b4394
Cite this as: BMJ 2009;339:b4394

Letters

Vitamin D and falls

Time for a moratorium on vitamin D meta-analyses?

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

In 2003, Latham and colleagues performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of vitamin D or its metabolites on falls and found no effect.¹ At least eight further meta-analyses have been performed, including that reported by Bischoff-Ferrari and colleagues.² Four reported a positive effect, and five no effect, or benefits limited to certain subgroups. The differences between conclusions often depend on selection of studies for inclusion in the analyses, and the grounds for exclusion sometimes seem capricious. For example, a negative study³ was excluded from the recent meta-analysis because patients were "in an unstable health state," even though this was not an exclusion criterion and this could apply to many people who will be treated.²

There are relatively few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on this topic. The most recent review included 10 studies of 3050 participants included in the primary analysis and 17 studies in the sensitivity analyses.² . . . [Full text of this article]

¹ Department of Medicine, University of Auckland, Auckland 1142, New Zealand,

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    StumbleUpon    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Article

Fall prevention with supplemental and active forms of vitamin D: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

H A Bischoff-Ferrari, B Dawson-Hughes, H B Staehelin, J E Orav, A E Stuck, R Theiler, J B Wong, A Egli, D P Kiel, and J Henschkowski
BMJ 2009 339: b3692. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Online poll

Find out more>>