Vitamin D and/or calcium to prevent fractures and falls: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous systematic reviews on fracture and fall prevention have generally shown no efficacy with calcium or vitamin D alone and conflicting findings with that of vitamin D combined with calcium. Despite these findings, increases in vitamin D and calcium prescriptions have been reported in many countries, as many clinicians, guidelines and regulatory agencies still largely recommend universal supplementation to adults. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a systematic review of randomised controlled trials on the efficacy of vitamin D and/or calcium in fracture and fall prevention. A systematic search will be performed in Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and Clinicaltrials.gov (1 January 2024). We will also hand search abstracts published in relevant congress and journals (2021-2023) and the reference lists of included trials. We will consider any trial involving the pharmacological administration of calcium alone, vitamin D alone or vitamin D combined with calcium against placebo or no treatment in adults. The primary outcome will be the number of participants with fractures at any site. The secondary outcomes will be the number of participants with hip fractures, non-vertebral fractures, vertebral fractures and falls, and the rate of falls. Two reviewers will independently screen and include the trials, extract the data and assess the risk of bias using the second version of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. We plan to pool outcomes to conduct random-effects meta-analyses and to appraise the certainty of evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Many prespecified subgroup and sensitivity analyses will be performed to explore the potential heterogeneity and to test the robustness of our findings. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This systematic review does not require research ethics approval. The results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and help inform clinicians, guidelines and regulatory agencies. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023483915.
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 | 0.063 | 0.107 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.026 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.079 | 0.008 |
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".