What does the research show about 25-hydroxyvitamin d?

25-hydroxyvitamin D

25-hydroxyvitamin D is the blood test for vitamin D status. Bodies disagree on cut points: one calls 20 ng/mL sufficient, others set 30, and the Endocrine Society withdrew its own in 2024. Low levels track with more deaths, fractures and heart disease, but supplement trials mostly found no benefit. Half of immunoassays in one comparison missed a 5% accuracy target.

Checked 2026-11-13

Status: A blood test ordered by a clinician and also sold direct to consumers, including as finger-prick kits. FDA classifies vitamin D test systems, which measure 25-hydroxyvitamin D in serum or plasma for the assessment of vitamin D sufficiency, as class II devices with special controls [1].
Measures: The concentration of 25-hydroxyvitamin D in serum or plasma, the measure used to assess vitamin D status [1].
Also called: 25(OH)D, 25-OH vitamin D, 25-hydroxy vitamin D, vitamin D 25-hydroxy, vitamin D 25-OH total, 25OHD, calcidiol, calcifediol, 25-hydroxycholecalciferol, vitamin D level, vitamin D blood test
Tested for: vitamin D deficiency, bone health, fracture risk, fatigue, immunity, low mood, muscle weakness, checking a vitamin D supplement dose

Strong several reviews agree · Moderate one review or consistent trials · Limited one or a few small studies · Untested no study in people, listed with what it rests on

Linked in research6

StrongLinked to more deaths at low levels in cohorts, 67% more below 12 ng/mL, while 52 pooled trials of vitamin D supplements found no fewer deaths.
StrongLinked to more hip fractures at low levels in cohorts, while pooled trials of vitamin D supplements found no reduction in fractures or falls.
StrongLinked to more cardiovascular deaths at low levels in cohorts, while 21 pooled trials of vitamin D supplements found no fewer cardiovascular events.
StrongLinked to more type 2 diabetes at low levels in cohorts, and vitamin D lowered new diabetes 15% in three pooled trials of adults with prediabetes.
StrongLinked to lower vitamin D in women with uterine fibroids, about 5.5 to 5.9 ng/mL lower than in women without them, in three meta-analyses.
LimitedSmall studies found slightly lower vitamin D in adolescents with period pain, 16.2 against 17.7 ng/mL in one, and more pain at lower levels.

Reported risks0

No risks sourced yet.

Reference ranges

Each range is the one its source published, in ng/mL. Also reported in nmol/L. Where sources differ, each is shown.

Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline, 2011

Children and adults, with an emphasis on people at risk for vitamin D deficiency · [2]

Range	What the source calls it
below 20 ng/mL	"vitamin D deficiency"
20 to 29 ng/mL	"vitamin D insufficiency"
30 to 100 ng/mL	"sufficiency"
above 100 ng/mL	No name given

The guideline prints deficiency as below 20 ng/mL and insufficiency as 21 to 29 ng/mL, which leaves a result of exactly 20 unassigned. This page places 20 in the insufficiency band so the number line has no gap. The cut points rest in part on the levels at which parathyroid hormone settles and calcium absorption rises. The guideline describes 100 ng/mL as an upper level that gives a margin against high blood calcium, states that most studies suggest levels need to be above 150 ng/mL before there is concern, and gives no name to results above 100. It notes that assay variability confounds any single cut point, and gives the conversion as nmol/L divided by 2.496 [2]. In 2024 the Endocrine Society stated that it no longer endorses specific 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels to define sufficiency, insufficiency and deficiency, or its earlier target of 30 ng/mL, and published no replacement cut points [3]. The US Preventive Services Task Force states that no one serum level defines deficiency and that no consensus exists on the levels that represent sufficiency [4].

Institute of Medicine (now National Academy of Medicine) Dietary Reference Intakes report, 2011

The general population of the United States and Canada · [5], [6]

Range	What the source calls it
below 12 ng/mL	"at risk of deficiency"
12 to 19.9 ng/mL	"at risk for inadequacy"
20 to 50 ng/mL	"sufficient"
above 50 ng/mL	"reason for concern"

Set for bone health. The committee judged the evidence on outcomes outside the skeleton inconsistent and insufficient to set requirements. It wrote that people are at risk of deficiency below 12 ng/mL, that some are at risk for inadequacy between 12 and 20, that practically all persons are sufficient at 20 or above, and that there may be reason for concern above 50 [5]. The report prints the second band as between 12 and 20 ng/mL, written here as 12 to 19.9 because 20 itself is in the sufficient band. A level of 16 ng/mL was taken as meeting the needs of about half the population. The committee concluded that the prevalence of vitamin D inadequacy in North America had been overestimated through the use of higher cut points, and that levels above 30 ng/mL are not consistently associated with increased benefit [6].

Polish multi-society guideline, 2023

The general population of Poland, children and adults · [7]

Range	What the source calls it
20 or below ng/mL	"vitamin D deficiency"
20.1 to 29.9 ng/mL	"suboptimal vitamin D status"
30 to 50 ng/mL	"adequate to optimal vitamin D status"
50.1 to 100 ng/mL	"high vitamin D supply"
above 100 ng/mL	"increased risk for intoxication"

A consensus of eight medical societies, reached by discussion and panel voting, that weighs outcomes beyond bone. The guideline prints the second band as above 20 and below 30 ng/mL and the fourth as above 50 up to 100, written here to one decimal place. It defines vitamin D intoxication as a level above 100 ng/mL together with high blood calcium and related findings, not by the level alone. Its abstract gives deficiency as below 20, where its recommendations give 20 or below [7].

What has been shown to move it

Shown to lower it1

TopiramateLimitedStudied in childrenVery common

Bone density and growth in children

One small trial in children found lower bone density gains on topiramate, with 21% losing a clinically important amount against none on the comparison drug, and slower weight gain.

Serum parathyroid hormone and 25-hydroxyvitamin D fell, and urinary calcium rose.

The numbers and sources

How common: Very common: more than 1 in 10 people.
Effect: In a one-year active-controlled trial, topiramate lowered lumbar spine and whole-body bone mineral density, and 21% had a clinically important fall (Z score change of -0.5 or more) against 0 in the control group. Serum parathyroid hormone and 25-hydroxyvitamin D fell, and urinary calcium rose. Mean annual weight gain was lower than on the comparison drug, with a similar trend for height [3].
Population: 63 children with epilepsy, as reported in the label [3].
Sources: [3]
Caveats: Too small and short to judge fracture risk [3].

Shown to raise it3

SunlightModerate

Vitamin D levels

Shown to raise blood vitamin D in trials of UV and sunlight exposure. Advised sunlight raised it less than vitamin D supplements in one trial.

Compared with before the exposures, in the same people [1]; different UVB doses and skin areas [2]; vitamin D3 800 IU daily or 100,000 IU every 3 months [3]; care homes with no added sunlight [4]

The rise in 25-hydroxyvitamin D grew with UVB dose and, at small doses, with the area of skin exposed, and was smaller when the starting level was higher.

The numbers and sources

Effect: After simulated summer sunlight three times a week for 6 weeks in winter, 90% of adults reached a 25-hydroxyvitamin D level of 20 ng/mL and 26.2% reached 32 ng/mL [1]. The rise in 25-hydroxyvitamin D grew with UVB dose and, at small doses, with the area of skin exposed, and was smaller when the starting level was higher [2]. In vitamin D-deficient immigrants, advice to get sunlight raised 25-hydroxyvitamin D from 22.5 to 29.1 nmol/L over 6 months, against 53 nmol/L with 800 IU a day. Parathyroid hormone fell in all groups after 3 months, less with sunlight [3]. In frail older people, extra morning sunlight raised 25-hydroxyvitamin D only slightly, with a median adherence of 26% [4].
Population: 120 white adults aged 20 to 60 in Manchester, UK [1]. 92 participants [2]. 211 non-western immigrants aged 18 to 65 with a level under 25 nmol/L in the Netherlands [3]. 602 care home residents aged 70 and older, mean 86.4, in Sydney [4].
Sources: [1], [2], [3], [4]
Caveats: Two trials used UV lamps, not the sun [1][2]. Advice to go outdoors depends on whether people follow it [3][4]. Skin color, latitude, season and clothing change how much vitamin D the same time in the sun makes.

Vitamin DModerateStudied in women

Fibroid size in women with fibroids

Shown to shrink fibroids slightly or slow their growth against placebo over 2 to 3 months in women with fibroids, most with low vitamin D, in small trials.

Compared with placebo [56][58][59]; controls the source abstract does not describe [57]

The numbers and sources

Effect: Across 5 randomized trials (511 participants), vitamin D lowered fibroid size against placebo (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.31), more in trials lasting over 8 weeks (SMD -0.62, 95% CI -0.88 to -0.37), and raised serum vitamin D (SMD 3.1, 95% CI 0.66 to 5.55) [56]. A second review of 3 trials (328 participants) found the percentage change in fibroid diameter or volume differed from controls by -5.7 over 2 to 6 months (95% CI -10.63 to -0.76, I² 99%). The trials gave 50,000 IU weekly for 8 or 12 weeks, or every 2 weeks for 10 weeks [57]. In one 12-week trial, fibroid volume did not fall significantly on vitamin D (MD -0.71, P 0.085) and rose on placebo (MD 2.53, P 0.001) [58]. After hysteroscopic removal of fibroids, 1,000 IU a day for 12 months halved recurrence against placebo, a difference that was not significant (P 0.17), and recurrent fibroids were 7.7 mm smaller (P < 0.001) [59].
Population: 511 women with fibroids in 5 randomized trials [56]; 328 premenopausal women with fibroids and vitamin D insufficiency in 3 trials [57]; women with fibroids in a 12-week trial [58]; 109 women, mean age 37.9, after hysteroscopic myomectomy [59].
Sources: [56], [57], [58], [59]
Caveats: The trials were small and short, and heterogeneity was 99% in [57]. The two reviews share most of their trials. The abstracts do not report menstrual bleeding. The recurrence trial was a pilot, and its difference in recurrence was not significant [59].

Vitamin DModerateStudied in women

Excess hair and androgens in PCOS

Not shown to change hair growth scores or SHBG in women with PCOS in one review. Total testosterone fell slightly against placebo.

Compared with placebo [73]; placebo, metformin, short-acting contraceptives, ovulation drugs or assisted reproduction without vitamin D [69]

The numbers and sources

Effect: Across 13 RCTs (840 women), modified Ferriman-Gallwey hair scores (MD 0.04, 95% CI -0.79 to 0.86) and SHBG (MD 1.33, 95% CI -2.70 to 5.36) did not differ from placebo. Total testosterone fell by 0.17 (95% CI 0.05 to 0.29) and serum vitamin D rose by 17.81 [73]. A review of add-on vitamin D in women seeking pregnancy also found lower androgen levels (MD -2.31, 95% CI -3.51 to -1.11) [69].
Population: 840 women with PCOS in 13 RCTs [73]; 1,961 women with PCOS in 20 RCTs [69].
Sources: [73], [69]
Caveats: The abstract of [73] does not give units for testosterone or vitamin D. The hair score result rests on one review.

Type in your own result

How it compares with the reference method

Mixed results3

Moderate

Immunoassays against reference mass spectrometry

Mixed results: in one comparison across 17 laboratories, half of 32 immunoassays read within 5% of reference values, and most under-read vitamin D2.

The numbers and sources

Compared with: Target values assigned by isotope dilution liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry
Effect: In an interlaboratory study of 50 single-donor samples, only 50% of 32 ligand binding assays met the criterion of a mean bias within 5%. Of 13 distinct assays, 4 were consistently within 5% and 4 consistently outside it whichever laboratory ran them. Most assays underestimated 25-hydroxyvitamin D2 [18]. In a single-laboratory study, all 12 assays met the criterion of a coefficient of variation of 10% or less, and 9 of 12 were within 5% mean bias [19]. In 400 outpatient samples, all three automated immunoassays tested differed significantly from the reference method, and which assay was used changed how patients were classified at the 10, 20 and 30 ng/mL (25, 50 and 75 nmol/L) thresholds. Agreement in classification for the closest assay ranged from kappa 0.818 to 0.895 [20].
Population: 17 laboratories running 32 ligand binding assays on 50 samples [18]. 13 assays in one laboratory on 50 samples [19]. 400 adult outpatient serum samples spread evenly across four concentration ranges [20].
Sources: [18], [19], [20]
Caveats: Performance differs by assay, and a laboratory report does not always name the assay used. The authors of the 2026 comparison conclude that clinically important differences remain among automated immunoassays despite standardization efforts [20].

Limited

Finger-prick dried blood spot against a venous draw

Mixed results: one study found dried blood spot results tracked venous serum on average, with limits of agreement about 8 to 10 ng/mL either side.

The numbers and sources

Compared with: Serum from a venous sample drawn at the same time, both measured by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry
Effect: Dried blood spot and serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 correlated at r = 0.929. After the blood spot values were recalculated for a 13% difference, the fixed bias was 0.7 ng/mL (1.7 nmol/L) and the limits of agreement ran from -8.3 to 9.7 ng/mL (-20.7 to 24.1 nmol/L). The recalculated blood spot result identified serum levels below 12 ng/mL with 87.8% sensitivity and 89.2% specificity, and below 20 ng/mL with 91.1% sensitivity and 83.1% specificity. The authors concluded that agreement was close enough for population screening and less suited to assessing an individual [21].
Population: 301 Chinese adults living in the Netherlands [21].
Sources: [21]
Caveats: One study using a research laboratory method, with a correction factor derived in the same sample. It did not test a commercial home kit [21].

Limited

Week to week variation in one person

One small study found 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 varied 1.8% from week to week within the same person over five weeks.

The numbers and sources

Compared with: The same person's results on 5 weekly draws
Effect: Within-person variation was 1.8% (95% CI 0.6 to 2.5), variation between people was 44.2% and analytical variation was 3.2%. The authors calculated that two results in one person need to differ by 10.2% to exceed expected variation [22].
Population: 22 apparently healthy volunteers aged 18 to 55 in Turkey, sampled once a week for five weeks [22].
Sources: [22]
Caveats: Twenty-two people and one laboratory. Five weeks cannot show change across seasons. The study states no threshold for agreement, so the result is given as numbers only [22].

What studies tie it to

Linked in research6

Strong

Death from any cause

Linked to more deaths at low levels in cohorts, 67% more below 12 ng/mL, while 52 pooled trials of vitamin D supplements found no fewer deaths.

The numbers and sources

Effect: In pooled individual data with standardized measurements, adjusted hazard ratios for death against a reference of 30 to 40 ng/mL (75 to 99.99 nmol/L) were 1.15 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.29) at 16 to 20 ng/mL, 1.33 (1.16 to 1.51) at 12 to 16 ng/mL and 1.67 (1.44 to 1.89) below 12 ng/mL (30 nmol/L). Risk was not significantly higher at levels up to 50 ng/mL (125 nmol/L) [8]. Across 73 cohort studies, the bottom third of baseline levels had a relative risk of death of 1.35 against the top third (95% CI 1.22 to 1.49) [9]. In 52 randomized trials, vitamin D supplementation was not associated with death from any cause (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.02) [10]. In a trial of 2,000 IU a day in 25,871 US adults, the hazard ratio for death was 0.99 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.12) [11].
Population: 26,916 participants in 8 European prospective studies, median age 61.6, 6,802 deaths over a median 10.5 years [8]. 849,412 participants in 73 cohort studies [9]. 75,454 participants in 52 trials [10]. 25,871 men aged 50 or older and women aged 55 or older [11].
Sources: [8], [9], [10], [11]
Caveats: The cohort findings are observational, so confounding and reverse causation, where illness lowers the level, cannot be ruled out. An earlier pooled analysis of trials found fewer deaths with vitamin D3 (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.99) and not with vitamin D2 [9]. The Endocrine Society notes that average starting levels in many large trials were in a range most would consider adequate [3].

Strong

Broken bones

Linked to more hip fractures at low levels in cohorts, while pooled trials of vitamin D supplements found no reduction in fractures or falls.

The numbers and sources

Effect: In 15 prospective cohort studies, the lowest category of 25-hydroxyvitamin D had a relative risk of hip fracture of 1.58 against the highest (95% CI 1.41 to 1.77), with risk falling as levels rose up to about 24 ng/mL (60 nmol/L) and flat above that [12]. In 81 randomized trials, vitamin D had no effect on total fracture (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.07), hip fracture (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.26) or falls (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.02), and no clinically relevant effect on bone mineral density [13]. In a trial of 2,000 IU a day, total fractures did not differ from placebo (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.08), with no difference by starting 25-hydroxyvitamin D level [14].
Population: 51,239 participants with 3,386 hip fractures in 15 cohort studies [12]. 53,537 participants in 81 trials [13]. 25,871 generally healthy US adults followed a median 5.3 years [14].
Sources: [12], [13], [14]
Caveats: The cohort finding is observational. The trial participants were not selected for vitamin D deficiency, low bone mass or osteoporosis [14], so the trials say less about people with very low levels.

Strong

Heart disease and stroke

Linked to more cardiovascular deaths at low levels in cohorts, while 21 pooled trials of vitamin D supplements found no fewer cardiovascular events.

The numbers and sources

Effect: Across cohort studies, the bottom third of baseline levels had a relative risk of death from cardiovascular disease of 1.35 against the top third (95% CI 1.13 to 1.61) [9]. In 21 randomized trials, vitamin D supplementation was not associated with fewer major adverse cardiovascular events (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.06), heart attacks (RR 1.00), strokes (RR 1.06) or cardiovascular deaths (RR 0.98), and results were consistent across starting 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels [15]. In a trial of 2,000 IU a day, major cardiovascular events did not differ from placebo (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.12) [11].
Population: 73 cohort studies [9]. 83,291 participants in 21 trials, mean age 65.8, 74.4% women [15]. 25,871 US adults followed a median 5.3 years [11].
Sources: [9], [15], [11]
Caveats: The cohort finding is observational. Only 4 of the 21 trials had cardiovascular disease as a prespecified primary end point [15].

Strong

Type 2 diabetes

Linked to more type 2 diabetes at low levels in cohorts, and vitamin D lowered new diabetes 15% in three pooled trials of adults with prediabetes.

The numbers and sources

Effect: In 21 prospective studies, the highest category of 25-hydroxyvitamin D had a relative risk of type 2 diabetes of 0.62 against the lowest (95% CI 0.54 to 0.70), and each 4 ng/mL (10 nmol/L) higher went with a 4% lower risk (95% CI 3 to 6) [16]. In an individual-participant meta-analysis of 3 trials in adults with prediabetes, vitamin D reduced new diabetes by 15% (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.96), an absolute reduction of 3.3% over 3 years. Among those assigned to cholecalciferol, participants who held a level of 50 ng/mL or above during the trial had a hazard ratio of 0.24 (95% CI 0.16 to 0.36) against those at 20 to 29 ng/mL [17].
Population: 76,220 participants with 4,996 new cases of type 2 diabetes in 21 studies [16]. Adults with prediabetes in 3 trials of cholecalciferol or eldecalcitol against placebo [17].
Sources: [16], [17]
Caveats: The cohort finding is observational. The comparison by level reached during the trials is not randomized. The trial authors state that results in people with prediabetes do not apply to the general population [17].

StrongStudied in women

Uterine fibroids

Linked to lower vitamin D in women with uterine fibroids, about 5.5 to 5.9 ng/mL lower than in women without them, in three meta-analyses.

The numbers and sources

Effect: In 21 studies, women with fibroids had lower 25-hydroxyvitamin D than controls (mean difference -5.90 ng/mL, I² 97.4%), and 26 of 29 clinical studies reported an association between low vitamin D and fibroids [23]. In observational studies of premenopausal women with fibroids found by ultrasound, levels were lower than in women without fibroids (mean difference -5.50 ng/mL, 95% CI -6.99 to -4.01) and vitamin D deficiency was more common (odds ratio 3.71, 1.90 to 7.24) [24]. In 9 studies, the standardized mean difference was -0.67 (95% CI -0.98 to -0.35), largest in studies from Asia and not significant in two studies from Africa [25].
Population: 43 clinical studies within a review of 69 [23]. 23 observational studies with 5,650 participants [24]. 835 women with fibroids and 895 controls in 9 studies [25].
Sources: [23], [24], [25]
Caveats: Observational, with very high heterogeneity between studies. The abstracts do not report adjustment for body weight, season or ancestry, and the studies cannot show whether low vitamin D came before the fibroids [23][24][25].

LimitedStudied in women

Period pain

Small studies found slightly lower vitamin D in adolescents with period pain, 16.2 against 17.7 ng/mL in one, and more pain at lower levels.

The numbers and sources

Effect: In Asian adolescents, 25-hydroxyvitamin D was 16.17 ng/mL (SD 7.36) in those with primary dysmenorrhea and 17.65 (6.36) in matched controls (P = 0.01), and lower levels went with higher pain scores [29]. In 372 young women with period pain, lower 25-hydroxyvitamin D went with higher pain scores (P = 0.044) [30].
Population: 205 adolescents with primary dysmenorrhea and 210 controls [29]. 372 young women at one clinic in Tehran [30].
Sources: [29], [30]
Caveats: Observational and cross-sectional. The second study had no group without period pain. The gap in the first was 1.5 ng/mL, and both groups averaged below 20 ng/mL [29][30].

Mixed results2

Moderate

Death from cancer

Mixed results: pooled trials found 16% fewer cancer deaths with vitamin D supplements, while standardized cohort data found no clear link between the blood level and cancer death.

The numbers and sources

Effect: Across 52 randomized trials, vitamin D supplementation reduced the risk of death from cancer (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.95) [10]. In a trial of 2,000 IU a day, invasive cancer did not differ from placebo (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.06) and the hazard ratio for death from cancer was 0.83 (95% CI 0.67 to 1.02) [11]. Across cohort studies, the bottom third of baseline levels had a relative risk of death from cancer of 1.14 against the top third (95% CI 1.01 to 1.29) [9]. Pooled individual data with standardized measurements found no significant linear association between the level and cancer death [8].
Population: 75,454 participants in 52 trials [10]. 25,871 US adults [11]. 73 cohort studies [9]. 26,916 participants in 8 European studies [8].
Sources: [10], [11], [9], [8]
Caveats: Cancer death was a secondary outcome in the trials. The largest single trial found no effect on being diagnosed with cancer [11].

ModerateStudied in women

Endometriosis

Mixed results: one meta-analysis linked endometriosis to lower vitamin D, while a second review of nine studies found three showed no difference.

The numbers and sources

Effect: In 9 studies, women with endometriosis had lower vitamin D than controls (standardized mean difference -0.97, 95% CI -1.80 to -0.14), and lower in stage III to IV than in stage I to II (-1.33, -2.54 to -0.12). Vitamin D deficiency was not significantly more common (odds ratio 2.77, 0.85 to 6.08) [26]. A second review of 9 studies found that 6 reported a difference in 25-hydroxyvitamin D between women with and without endometriosis and 3 did not [27].
Population: 9 studies [26]. 976 women with endometriosis and 674 controls in 9 studies [27].
Sources: [26], [27]
Caveats: Observational, with high heterogeneity. The gap was larger in women not using hormones, so hormone treatment may affect the comparison [26].

Checked, no link found1

ModerateStudied in women

Polycystic ovary syndrome in women without obesity

Not shown to differ: a meta-analysis of 11 studies found no difference in vitamin D between non-obese women with polycystic ovary syndrome and women without it.

The numbers and sources

Effect: In non-obese women, serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D and 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D did not differ significantly between women with PCOS and healthy controls. Heterogeneity was tied to region, diagnostic criteria, body mass index and assay, and the authors found significant publication bias. They suggest that low vitamin D in PCOS may be driven by obesity more than by the condition [28].
Population: 533 non-obese women with PCOS and 574 controls in 11 studies [28].
Sources: [28]
Caveats: Covers non-obese women only, so it does not describe women with PCOS and obesity. The abstract gives no pooled figure [28].

Sources

US Food and Drug Administration. 21 CFR 862.1825, Vitamin D test system. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/section-862.1825
Holick MF, Binkley NC, Bischoff-Ferrari HA, et al. Evaluation, Treatment, and Prevention of Vitamin D Deficiency: an Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. 2011. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2011-0385
Demay MB, Pittas AG, Bikle DD, et al. Vitamin D for the Prevention of Disease: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1210/clinem/dgae290
US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for Vitamin D Deficiency in Adults: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2021.3069
Institute of Medicine. Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium and Vitamin D. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 2011. https://doi.org/10.17226/13050
Ross AC, Manson JE, Abrams SA, et al. The 2011 Report on Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium and Vitamin D from the Institute of Medicine: What Clinicians Need to Know. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. 2011. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2010-2704
Płudowski P, Kos-Kudła B, Walczak M, et al. Guidelines for Preventing and Treating Vitamin D Deficiency: A 2023 Update in Poland. Nutrients. 2023. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15030695
Gaksch M, Jorde R, Grimnes G, et al. Vitamin D and mortality: Individual participant data meta-analysis of standardized 25-hydroxyvitamin D in 26916 individuals from a European consortium. PLOS ONE. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170791
Chowdhury R, Kunutsor S, Vitezova A, et al. Vitamin D and risk of cause specific death: systematic review and meta-analysis of observational cohort and randomised intervention studies. BMJ. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g1903
Zhang Y, Fang F, Tang J, et al. Association between vitamin D supplementation and mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4673
Manson JE, Cook NR, Lee IM, et al. Vitamin D Supplements and Prevention of Cancer and Cardiovascular Disease. New England Journal of Medicine. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1809944
Lv QB, Gao X, Liu X, et al. The serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels and hip fracture risk: a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Oncotarget. 2017. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.16337
Bolland MJ, Grey A, Avenell A. Effects of vitamin D supplementation on musculoskeletal health: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis. The Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587(18)30265-1
LeBoff MS, Chou SH, Ratliff KA, et al. Supplemental Vitamin D and Incident Fractures in Midlife and Older Adults. New England Journal of Medicine. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2202106
Barbarawi M, Kheiri B, Zayed Y, et al. Vitamin D Supplementation and Cardiovascular Disease Risks in More Than 83 000 Individuals in 21 Randomized Clinical Trials. JAMA Cardiology. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamacardio.2019.1870
Song Y, Wang L, Pittas AG, et al. Blood 25-Hydroxy Vitamin D Levels and Incident Type 2 Diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2013. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc12-0962
Pittas AG, Kawahara T, Jorde R, et al. Vitamin D and Risk for Type 2 Diabetes in People With Prediabetes. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2023. https://doi.org/10.7326/M22-3018
Wise SA, Camara JE, Burdette CQ, et al. Interlaboratory comparison of 25-hydroxyvitamin D assays: Vitamin D Standardization Program (VDSP) Intercomparison Study 2, Part 2 ligand binding assays, impact of 25-hydroxyvitamin D2 and 24R,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 on assay performance. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-021-03577-0
Wise SA, Camara JE, Sempos CT, et al. Vitamin D Standardization Program (VDSP) intralaboratory study for the assessment of 25-hydroxyvitamin D assay variability and bias. The Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsbmb.2021.105917
Racz S, Jozsa L, Bhattoa-Buzas AP, et al. Comprehensive Comparison of Three Automated 25-Hydroxyvitamin D Immunoassays with a VDSCP Traceable LC-MS/MS Method Across Clinically Relevant Decision Thresholds. Nutrients. 2026. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu18182986
Man PW, Heijboer AC, van der Meer IM, et al. Agreement between measurement of 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 in dried blood spot samples and serum in a Chinese population in the Netherlands. The Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsbmb.2019.105472
Ozkanay H, Arslan FD, Narin F, Koseoglu MH. Biological variation of plasma 25-Hydroxyvitamin D3, serum vitamin B12, folate and ferritin in Turkish healthy subject. Scandinavian Journal of Clinical and Laboratory Investigation. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1080/00365513.2023.2278537
Gutiérrez-Camacho AI, Kim H, Prince L, et al. Vitamin D Deficiency Is Associated with Increased Uterine Fibroid Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. The Journal of Nutrition. 2026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjnut.2026.101838
Ivanova M, Soule A, Pudwell J, Bougie O. The Association of Vitamin D with Uterine Fibroids in Premenopausal Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogc.2024.102632
Mohammadi R, Tabrizi R, Hessami K, et al. Correlation of low serum vitamin-D with uterine leiomyoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12958-020-00644-6
Qiu Y, Yuan S, Wang H. Vitamin D status in endometriosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-020-05576-5
Ursache A, Lozneanu L, Bujor IE, et al. Vitamin D: The Iceberg in Endometriosis. Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Personalized Medicine. 2024. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm14010119
Jiang M, Wang T, Huang L. Serum vitamin D levels in non-obese women with polycystic ovary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Endocrinology. 2026. https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2026.1839319
Donayeva A, Amanzholkyzy A, Nurgaliyeva R, et al. Vitamin D and vitamin D receptor polymorphism in Asian adolescents with primary dysmenorrhea. BMC Women's Health. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-023-02569-9
Zeynali M, Haghighian HK. Is there a relationship between serum vitamin D with dysmenorrhea pain in young women? Journal of Gynecology Obstetrics and Human Reproduction. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogoh.2019.03.002

Everything in the library