Letters Vitamin D and risk of cause specific death

Authors’ reply to Grant and Garland and to Bolland and colleagues

BMJ 2014; 348 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g2931 (Published 29 April 2014) Cite this as: BMJ 2014;348:g2931
  1. Rajiv Chowdhury, cardiovascular epidemiologist1,
  2. Oscar H Franco, professor2
  3. On behalf of Setor Kunutsor, Anna Vitezova, Clare Oliver-Williams, Susmita Chowdhury, Jessica C Kiefte-de-Jong, Hassan Khan, Cristina P Baena, Dorairaj Prabhakaran, Moshe B Hoshen, Becca S Feldman, An Pan, Laura Johnson, Francesca Crowe, and Frank B Hu
  1. 1Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Strangeways Research Laboratory, Cambridge CB1 8RN, UK
  2. 2Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, Netherlands
  1. o.franco{at}erasmusmc.nl

We agree with Grant and Garland that, although existing ecological studies support the findings of our meta-analysis of observational studies, further work—especially that involving well powered randomised intervention studies—is needed.1 2 However, the respective pooled risk ratios that we reported by combining the primary and secondary prevention cohorts are based on indirect comparisons (only a subset of studies provided mortality risk data on people with pre-existing disease).

As Bolland and …

View Full Text

Sign in

Log in through your institution

Free trial

Register for a free trial to thebmj.com to receive unlimited access to all content on thebmj.com for 14 days.
Sign up for a free trial

Subscribe