Randomised controlled trialcited by the Tayebat archiveabstract only checked A-SUP-21 standard review
High monthly vitamin D and falls
Monthly High-Dose Vitamin D Treatment for the Prevention of Functional Decline: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Overview
Bischoff-Ferrari HA et al.. JAMA Intern Med 2016 · PMID 26747333 · DOI 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.7148
More people fell with the higher monthly doses.
Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: moderate
Plain-language summary
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Function and falls.
- How was the study done?
RCT.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
200.
- What was actually found?
More falls.
- How large was the observed effect?
67% vs 48%.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Avoid high boluses.
- What are the study's limitations?
Small.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Partly supports.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Swiss.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Daily doses.
Scientific in-depth review
1. Full reference
- Authors
- Bischoff-Ferrari HA, Dawson-Hughes B, Orav EJ, Staehelin HB, Meyer OW, Theiler R, Dick W, Willett WC, Egli A
- Journal
- JAMA Intern Med
- Year
- 2016
- Identifier
- PMID 26747333 DOI 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.7148
- Verification
- verified – PubMed E-utilities efetch, 2026-10-25
- Retracted
- no
- Corrections
- none
- Extent checked
- abstract only
- Conflicts of interest and funding
not stated in abstract
2. Research question
Does high-dose monthly vitamin D lower functional decline?
3. Study design and population
- Study design
- Randomised controlled trial – One-year double-blind RCT
- Population
≥70 years with prior fall
- Country
Switzerland
- Period
2009–2011
- Sample size
200
- Inclusion and exclusion criteria
see abstract
4. Methods and endpoints
- Exposure / intervention
60,000 IU D3 or 24,000 IU + calcifediol monthly
- Comparator
24,000 IU monthly
- Endpoints
Lower-extremity function; falls
- Statistical methods
ITT
5. Actual results
- Results
No difference in function (P=.26); falls 66.9% and 66.1% vs 47.9% (P=.048).
- Absolute risks
not reported in abstract
- Authors' conclusion
Higher monthly doses did not improve function and increased falls.
6. Strengths
- RCT
7. Weaknesses
- Small
- Secondary outcome falls
8. Risk of bias
- Orienting tool
- RoB 2
- Type of assessment
- simplified assessment (abstract only)
- Full formal assessment
- no
- Overall risk of bias
- some concerns
- Rationale
Small RCT; falls secondary.
9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation
See results.
10. Relevance to the specific claim
11. Independent contrary findings
12. Transferability to Germany and Europe
High: biology and trial populations comparable to European adults.
13. Overall methodological judgement
Supports caution with high intermittent doses.
| Multidimensional assessment | |
|---|---|
| Authenticity of the source | verified |
| Methodological quality | moderate |
| Risk of bias | some concerns |
| Precision of results | low |
| Directness | direct |
| Reproducibility | partly replicated |
| Consistency with the overall evidence | consistent |
| Regional transferability | high |
| Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive) | essentially correct but incomplete |
14. Open questions
15. Linked fact checks
Use by the Tayebat archive
Note: according to the archive, the studies were compiled by the archive operators. Whether Dr. Elawady himself cited this study is not established.
- What the archive says about the study
Listed in the archive bibliography of the oral-supplements rule without its own interpretation; used implicitly to support the rule summary that supplements 'failed or caused harm' in large trials.
- A. What was actually studied?
Does high-dose monthly vitamin D lower functional decline?
- B. What did the authors find?
No difference in function (P=.26); falls 66.9% and 66.1% vs 47.9% (P=.048).
- C. What conclusions do the authors themselves draw?
Higher monthly doses did not improve function and increased falls.
- D. What does the archive derive from it?
Supports dose-related harm.
- E. Is this derivation scientifically justified?
Partly.
- Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)
- essentially correct but incomplete