What Is the Role of Vitamin D Supplementation in Acute Fracture Patients? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Prevalence of Hypovitaminosis D and Supplementation Efficacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this systematic review and meta-analyses are (1) to estimate the prevalence of hypovitaminosis D in fracture patients and (2) to summarize the available evidence on the efficacy of vitamin D supplementation in fracture patients. DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive search of the MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases was conducted. Conference abstracts from relevant meetings were also searched. STUDY SELECTION: We included studies that investigate vitamin D insufficiency or examine the effect of vitamin D supplementation on 25-hydroxy-vitamin D (25(OH)D) serum levels in fracture patients. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently extracted data using a predesigned form. DATA SYNTHESIS: We performed a pooled analysis to determine the prevalence of postfracture hypovitaminosis D and mean postfracture 25(OH)D levels. We present detailed summaries of each of the studies evaluating the impact of vitamin D supplementation. RESULTS: The weighted pooled prevalence of hypovitaminosis D was 70.0% (95% confidence interval: 63.7%-76.0%, I = 97.7). The mean postfracture serum 25(OH)D was 19.5 ng/mL. The studies that evaluated the efficacy of vitamin D supplementation suggest that vitamin D supplementation safely increases serum 25(OH)D levels. Only 1 meeting abstract showed a trend toward reduced risk of nonunion after a single large loading dose of vitamin D. CONCLUSIONS: This review found a high prevalence of hypovitaminosis D in fracture patients and that vitamin D supplementation at a range of doses safely increases 25(OH)D serum levels. To date, only 1 pilot study published as a meeting abstract has demonstrated a trend toward improved fracture healing with vitamin D supplementation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".