Effect of Vitamin <scp>D</scp> Supplementation on Muscle Strength, Gait and Balance in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To systematically review and quantitatively synthesize the effect of vitamin D supplementation on muscle strength, gait, and balance in older adults. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. SETTING: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, bibliographies of selected articles, and previous systematic reviews were searched between January 1980 and November 2010 for eligible articles. PARTICIPANTS: Older adults (≥60) participating in randomized controlled trials of the effect of supplemental vitamin D without an exercise intervention on muscle strength, gait, and balance. MEASUREMENTS: Data were independently extracted, and study quality was evaluated. Meta-analysis using a fixed-effects model was performed and the I(2) statistic was used to assess heterogeneity. RESULTS: Of 714 potentially relevant articles, 13 met the inclusion criteria. In the pooled analysis, vitamin D supplementation yielded a standardized mean difference of -0.20 (95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.39 to -0.01, P = .04, I(2) = 0%) for reduced postural sway, -0.19 (95% CI = -0.35 to -0.02, P = .03, I(2) = 0%) for decreased time to complete the Timed Up and Go Test, and 0.05 (95% CI = -0.11 to 0.20, P = .04, I(2) = 0%) for lower extremity strength gain. Regarding dosing frequency regimen, only one study demonstrated a beneficial effect on balance with a single large dose. All studies with daily doses of 800 IU or more demonstrated beneficial effects on balance and muscle strength. CONCLUSION: Supplemental vitamin D with daily doses of 800 to 1,000 IU consistently demonstrated beneficial effects on strength and balance. An effect on gait was not demonstrated, although further evaluation is recommended.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".