Guideline / position statementindependent cross-checkabstract only checked I-SUP-05 standard review
Endocrine Society 2024 vitamin D guideline
Vitamin D for the Prevention of Disease: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline.
Overview
Demay MB et al.. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2024 · PMID 38828931 · DOI 10.1210/clinem/dgae290
Suggests vitamin D for children, pregnancy, people ≥75 and high-risk prediabetes.
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: high
Plain-language summary
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Vitamin D for prevention.
- How was the study done?
Guideline.
- What was actually found?
Group-specific suggestions.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Some groups benefit.
- What are the study's limitations?
Conditional.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Contradicts blanket ban.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Applicable.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Doses.
Scientific in-depth review
1. Full reference
- Authors
- Demay MB et al.
- Journal
- J Clin Endocrinol Metab
- Year
- 2024
- Identifier
- PMID 38828931 DOI 10.1210/clinem/dgae290
- Verification
- verified – PubMed efetch 2026-10-25
- Retracted
- no
- Corrections
ErratumIn: J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2025 Feb 18;110(3):e916. doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgae854.; ErratumIn: J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2025 Jul 15;110(8):e2810. doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgaf310.
- Extent checked
- abstract only
- Conflicts of interest and funding
not stated in abstract
2. Research question
Vitamin D for prevention of disease in people without established indications
3. Study design and population
- Study design
- Guideline / position statement – Clinical practice guideline (Endocrine Society), GRADE
- Population
General population by age group, pregnancy, prediabetes
- Country
International
- Period
2024
- Inclusion and exclusion criteria
No established indication for vitamin D or 25(OH)D testing
4. Methods and endpoints
- Exposure / intervention
Empiric vitamin D
- Comparator
No empiric supplementation
- Endpoints
Various
- Statistical methods
GRADE
5. Actual results
- Results
Suggests empiric vitamin D for ages 1–18 (rickets prevention, possible respiratory infection reduction), ≥75 years (possible mortality reduction), pregnancy (possible lower preeclampsia, intrauterine mortality, preterm, SGA, neonatal mortality), high-risk prediabetes; daily rather than intermittent high doses for >50 years; against empiric supplementation above DRI for healthy adults <75.
- Absolute risks
not applicable
- Authors' conclusion
Empiric supplementation suggested for specific groups; optimal doses unclear.
6. Strengths
- GRADE
- Multidisciplinary
7. Weaknesses
- Conditional recommendations
- Errata
8. Risk of bias
- Orienting tool
- none applicable
- Type of assessment
- simplified assessment (abstract only)
- Full formal assessment
- no
- Overall risk of bias
- not assessable
- Rationale
Guideline.
9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation
10. Relevance to the specific claim
11. Independent contrary findings
12. Transferability to Germany and Europe
High.
13. Overall methodological judgement
Specific groups benefit; mega-doses discouraged.
| Multidimensional assessment | |
|---|---|
| Authenticity of the source | verified |
| Methodological quality | high |
| Risk of bias | not assessable |
| Precision of results | not applicable |
| Directness | direct |
| Reproducibility | unknown |
| Consistency with the overall evidence | consistent |
| Regional transferability | high |
| Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive) | not applicable |
14. Open questions
Optimal dose.
15. Linked fact checks
- Certain supplements caused specific harms: more hip fractures (vitamin A), kidney stones (vitamin C), falls and fractures (high-dose vitamin D), type 2 diabetes (selenium), and no benefit for knee pain (glucosamine). – Studies contradicting or limiting the claim
- No one needs vitamins or supplements: 'there is no such thing as dietary supplements', the body makes its own vitamins, and vitamins are on the forbidden list. – Studies contradicting or limiting the claim