维生素D补充试验:在不可预测结果的迷宫中导航。

Q2 Medicine
Perspectives in Clinical Research Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-31 DOI:10.4103/picr.picr_325_23
Shruti Singh, Rajesh Kumar Meena, Vikas Maharshi, Nishi Sinha, Neha Agarwal, Shuvasree Payra, Divya Harsha
{"title":"维生素D补充试验:在不可预测结果的迷宫中导航。","authors":"Shruti Singh, Rajesh Kumar Meena, Vikas Maharshi, Nishi Sinha, Neha Agarwal, Shuvasree Payra, Divya Harsha","doi":"10.4103/picr.picr_325_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Vitamin D supplementation studies in various pleiotropic outcomes often yield conflicting results. This complexity arises from various factors, including individual differences (baseline Vitamin D levels, genetics, ethnicity, age, and gender). This review aims to clarify the complexities in Vitamin D supplementation research by examining various influencing factors, ultimately providing a comprehensive understanding to guide future studies and offer more accurate insights into the health impacts of Vitamin D supplementation. For this review, we searched PubMed, Google Scholar, and ScienceDirect, analyzing observational studies, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials to identify key factors influencing the efficacy of Vitamin D supplementation. By synthesizing findings from diverse research, we aimed to illuminate the nuances shaping the outcomes of these trials. In conclusion, the review suggests that several demographic and biological factors such as baseline 25(OH)D levels, age, ethnicity, genetics, body mass index, diet, sun exposure, medications, comorbid conditions, socioeconomic status, and self-supplementation all play significant roles in the outcomes of Vitamin D supplementation trials. In addition, the dose and duration of therapy, choice of daily versus bolus dosing, route of administration, and the role of free and bound forms of Vitamin D contribute to the complexity of trial results. Vitamin D's pleiotropic effects extend beyond calcium regulation, impacting various health aspects. Inadequate blood levels can confound trial outcomes, emphasizing the importance of reaching appropriate 25(OH)D thresholds. Study design, sample size, bias minimization, and methodology are critical in influencing trial outcomes and designing studies that account for baseline levels and compliance is crucial for meaningful and accurate results. Standardized assays and internationally agreed-upon cutoff levels are essential to mitigate variability in 25(OH)D measurements and improve result reliability.</p>","PeriodicalId":20015,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives in Clinical Research","volume":"16 2","pages":"69-74"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12048097/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Vitamin D supplementation trials: Navigating the maze of unpredictable results.\",\"authors\":\"Shruti Singh, Rajesh Kumar Meena, Vikas Maharshi, Nishi Sinha, Neha Agarwal, Shuvasree Payra, Divya Harsha\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/picr.picr_325_23\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Vitamin D supplementation studies in various pleiotropic outcomes often yield conflicting results. This complexity arises from various factors, including individual differences (baseline Vitamin D levels, genetics, ethnicity, age, and gender). This review aims to clarify the complexities in Vitamin D supplementation research by examining various influencing factors, ultimately providing a comprehensive understanding to guide future studies and offer more accurate insights into the health impacts of Vitamin D supplementation. For this review, we searched PubMed, Google Scholar, and ScienceDirect, analyzing observational studies, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials to identify key factors influencing the efficacy of Vitamin D supplementation. By synthesizing findings from diverse research, we aimed to illuminate the nuances shaping the outcomes of these trials. In conclusion, the review suggests that several demographic and biological factors such as baseline 25(OH)D levels, age, ethnicity, genetics, body mass index, diet, sun exposure, medications, comorbid conditions, socioeconomic status, and self-supplementation all play significant roles in the outcomes of Vitamin D supplementation trials. In addition, the dose and duration of therapy, choice of daily versus bolus dosing, route of administration, and the role of free and bound forms of Vitamin D contribute to the complexity of trial results. Vitamin D's pleiotropic effects extend beyond calcium regulation, impacting various health aspects. Inadequate blood levels can confound trial outcomes, emphasizing the importance of reaching appropriate 25(OH)D thresholds. Study design, sample size, bias minimization, and methodology are critical in influencing trial outcomes and designing studies that account for baseline levels and compliance is crucial for meaningful and accurate results. Standardized assays and internationally agreed-upon cutoff levels are essential to mitigate variability in 25(OH)D measurements and improve result reliability.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20015,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Perspectives in Clinical Research\",\"volume\":\"16 2\",\"pages\":\"69-74\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12048097/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Perspectives in Clinical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/picr.picr_325_23\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/31 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perspectives in Clinical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/picr.picr_325_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

维生素D补充研究的各种多效性结果往往产生相互矛盾的结果。这种复杂性源于多种因素,包括个体差异(基线维生素D水平、基因、种族、年龄和性别)。本综述旨在通过研究各种影响因素来澄清维生素D补充研究的复杂性,最终为指导未来的研究提供全面的理解,并为维生素D补充对健康的影响提供更准确的见解。在本综述中,我们检索了PubMed、b谷歌Scholar和ScienceDirect,分析了观察性研究、荟萃分析和随机对照试验,以确定影响维生素D补充剂功效的关键因素。通过综合不同研究的发现,我们旨在阐明影响这些试验结果的细微差别。总之,这篇综述表明,一些人口统计学和生物学因素,如基线25(OH)D水平、年龄、种族、遗传、体重指数、饮食、日晒、药物、合并症、社会经济地位和自我补充,都在维生素D补充试验的结果中起着重要作用。此外,治疗的剂量和持续时间、每日给药还是大剂量给药的选择、给药途径以及游离和结合形式的维生素D的作用都增加了试验结果的复杂性。维生素D的多效性超出了钙的调节范围,影响着健康的各个方面。血药浓度不足会混淆试验结果,强调达到适当的25(OH)D阈值的重要性。研究设计、样本量、最小化偏倚和方法学对影响试验结果至关重要,设计考虑基线水平和依从性的研究对于有意义和准确的结果至关重要。标准化的检测方法和国际公认的截止水平对于减少25(OH)D测量的可变性和提高结果的可靠性至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Vitamin D supplementation trials: Navigating the maze of unpredictable results.

Vitamin D supplementation studies in various pleiotropic outcomes often yield conflicting results. This complexity arises from various factors, including individual differences (baseline Vitamin D levels, genetics, ethnicity, age, and gender). This review aims to clarify the complexities in Vitamin D supplementation research by examining various influencing factors, ultimately providing a comprehensive understanding to guide future studies and offer more accurate insights into the health impacts of Vitamin D supplementation. For this review, we searched PubMed, Google Scholar, and ScienceDirect, analyzing observational studies, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials to identify key factors influencing the efficacy of Vitamin D supplementation. By synthesizing findings from diverse research, we aimed to illuminate the nuances shaping the outcomes of these trials. In conclusion, the review suggests that several demographic and biological factors such as baseline 25(OH)D levels, age, ethnicity, genetics, body mass index, diet, sun exposure, medications, comorbid conditions, socioeconomic status, and self-supplementation all play significant roles in the outcomes of Vitamin D supplementation trials. In addition, the dose and duration of therapy, choice of daily versus bolus dosing, route of administration, and the role of free and bound forms of Vitamin D contribute to the complexity of trial results. Vitamin D's pleiotropic effects extend beyond calcium regulation, impacting various health aspects. Inadequate blood levels can confound trial outcomes, emphasizing the importance of reaching appropriate 25(OH)D thresholds. Study design, sample size, bias minimization, and methodology are critical in influencing trial outcomes and designing studies that account for baseline levels and compliance is crucial for meaningful and accurate results. Standardized assays and internationally agreed-upon cutoff levels are essential to mitigate variability in 25(OH)D measurements and improve result reliability.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Perspectives in Clinical Research
Perspectives in Clinical Research Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
41
审稿时长
36 weeks
期刊介绍: This peer review quarterly journal is positioned to build a learning clinical research community in India. This scientific journal will have a broad coverage of topics across clinical research disciplines including clinical research methodology, research ethics, clinical data management, training, data management, biostatistics, regulatory and will include original articles, reviews, news and views, perspectives, and other interesting sections. PICR will offer all clinical research stakeholders in India – academicians, ethics committees, regulators, and industry professionals -a forum for exchange of ideas, information and opinions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信