Public Health England recommends vitamin D supplements in autumn and winterBMJ 2016; 354 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i4061 (Published 21 July 2016) Cite this as: BMJ 2016;354:i4061
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
The Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) recently recommended that the Reference Nutrient Intake (RNI) for vitamin D be increased to 400IU per day throughout the year, for everyone in the UK population aged 4 years and above, and that ‘the Government considers strategies to help the population consume the recommended intakes of vitamin D’1. These recommendations were based on the committee findings that vitamin D is beneficial for musculoskeletal health, particularly rickets and osteomalacia, falls risk in older adults, and muscle strength and function in younger adults. To make their recommendation, the committee located evidence using position papers submitted by members of the working group, and assessed the evidence using the SACN Framework for evaluation of the evidence1, which does not use explicit methods to integrate certainty of evidence for an outcome from multiple studies.
This approach to collating evidence and making recommendations seems at odds to newer methods used by the wider medical profession, such as that recommended by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) group. GRADE has several advantages over older methods: separation between the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendation, transparency about judgements, and explicit acknowledgement of values and preferences underlying the recommendations2. SACN also omitted to use a fully systematic literature search strategy when compiling their evidence1. This leaves questions about the reliability of their recommendation, concerns about opacity of their decision-making, and the possibility of study selection bias informing their decisions.
I have no conflicts of interest.
1. Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition. Vitamin D and health. London: Public Health England, 2016.
2. Introduction to GRADE handbook. Handbook for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations using the GRADE approach.: GRADE Working Group.
Competing interests: No competing interests