Meta-analysisindependent cross-checkabstract checked I-SUP-115 standard review
Large intermittent doses of vitamin D and falls
Effects of intermittent or single high-dose vitamin D supplementation on risk of falls and fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Overview
Myung SK et al.. Osteoporos Int 2023 · PMID 37120684 · DOI 10.1007/s00198-023-06761-3
Large doses given monthly or yearly did not prevent falls or fractures and might slightly increase falls.
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?
To check high-dose bolus vitamin D for falls and fractures.
- How was the study done?
Meta-analysis of 15 trials.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
15 trials.
- What was actually found?
No benefit; possible slight increase in falls.
- How large was the observed effect?
Falls RR 1.03 (0.98-1.09).
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Avoid huge occasional doses unless prescribed.
- What are the study's limitations?
P value and CI inconsistent.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Partly supports C-SUP-07 (falls), not fractures.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Applicable.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Not about daily moderate doses.
Scientific in-depth review
1. Full reference
- Authors
- Myung SK et al.
- Journal
- Osteoporos Int
- Year
- 2023
- Identifier
- PMID 37120684 DOI 10.1007/s00198-023-06761-3
- Verification
- verified – PubMed efetch 2026-10-26; Crossref works API 2026-10-26
- Retracted
- no
- Corrections
- none
- Extent checked
- abstract only
- Conflicts of interest and funding
No COI statement in PubMed record
2. Research question
Do intermittent or single high-dose vitamin D supplements affect falls and fractures?
3. Study design and population
- Study design
- Meta-analysis – Systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs
- Population
Adults in RCTs
- Country
Multinational
- Period
Search to 25 May 2022
- Sample size
15 RCTs
- Inclusion and exclusion criteria
RCTs of intermittent or single high-dose vitamin D
4. Methods and endpoints
- Exposure / intervention
Intermittent/single high-dose vitamin D
- Comparator
Placebo
- Endpoints
Falls, fractures
- Statistical methods
Random-effects meta-analysis; subgroups
5. Actual results
- Results
Falls RR 1.03 (0.98-1.09; I2 56.6%; 11 trials); fractures RR 0.99 (0.87-1.14; I2 48.3%; 11 trials). Fracture reduction in trials with <1000 participants (RR 0.74, 0.57-0.96) but not in larger trials (RR 1.06, 0.92-1.21). Vitamin D3: falls RR 1.06 (0.99-1.15), reported P=0.051.
- Absolute risks
not reported in abstract
- Authors' conclusion
Intermittent or single high-dose vitamin D had no preventive effect on falls and fractures and might even increase the risk of falls.
6. Strengths
- Focused on dosing regimen
7. Weaknesses
- Heterogeneity
- Reported P=0.051 is inconsistent with the 95% CI 0.99-1.15 (recomputed P about 0.13; stats/C-SUP-07_harms.py)
8. Risk of bias
- Orienting tool
- AMSTAR 2
- Type of assessment
- simplified assessment (abstract only)
- Full formal assessment
- no
- Overall risk of bias
- some concerns
- Rationale
Abstract only; small-study effect visible for fractures.
9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation
Borderline falls signal; small-study effects for fracture benefit.
10. Relevance to the specific claim
Shows no benefit of high-dose bolus vitamin D and at most a borderline increase in falls; tempers the claim's 'falls and fractures' harm.
11. Independent contrary findings
A-SUP-20 found a significant increase in one trial.
12. Transferability to Germany and Europe
Applicable.
13. Overall methodological judgement
Mixed: supports avoiding bolus doses; does not confirm a robust harm.
| Multidimensional assessment | |
|---|---|
| Authenticity of the source | verified |
| Methodological quality | moderate |
| Risk of bias | some concerns |
| Precision of results | moderate |
| Directness | direct |
| Reproducibility | partly replicated |
| Consistency with the overall evidence | mixed |
| Regional transferability | high |
| Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive) | not applicable |
14. Open questions
Mechanism of possible bolus harm.