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

Original publication

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
Multidimensional assessment
Authenticity of the sourceverified
Methodological qualitymoderate
Risk of biassome concerns
Precision of resultsmoderate
Directnessdirect
Reproducibilitypartly replicated
Consistency with the overall evidencemixed
Regional transferabilityhigh
Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)not applicable

14. Open questions

Mechanism of possible bolus harm.

15. Linked fact checks