Hip fracture risk in relation to vitamin D supplementation and serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational studies
© Lai et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2010
Received: 17 February 2010
Accepted: 11 June 2010
Published: 11 June 2010
Vitamin D supplementation for fracture prevention is widespread despite conflicting interpretation of relevant randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence. This study summarises quantitatively the current evidence from RCTs and observational studies regarding vitamin D, parathyroid hormone (PTH) and hip fracture risk.
We undertook separate meta-analyses of RCTs examining vitamin D supplementation and hip fracture, and observational studies of serum vitamin D status (25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) level), PTH and hip fracture. Results from RCTs were combined using the reported hazard ratios/relative risks (RR). Results from case-control studies were combined using the ratio of 25(OH)D and PTH measurements of hip fracture cases compared with controls. Original published studies of vitamin D, PTH and hip fracture were identified through PubMed and Web of Science databases, searches of reference lists and forward citations of key papers.
The seven eligible RCTs identified showed no significant difference in hip fracture risk in those randomised to cholecalciferol or ergocalciferol supplementation versus placebo/control (RR = 1.13[95%CI 0.98-1.29]; 801 cases), with no significant difference between trials of <800 IU/day and ≥800 IU/day. The 17 identified case-control studies found 33% lower serum 25(OH)D levels in cases compared to controls, based on 1903 cases. This difference was significantly greater in studies with population-based compared to hospital-based controls (χ2 1 (heterogeneity) = 51.02, p < 0.001) and significant heterogeneity was present overall (χ2 16 (heterogeneity) = 137.9, p < 0.001). Serum PTH levels in hip fracture cases did not differ significantly from controls, based on ten case-control studies with 905 cases (χ2 9 (heterogeneity) = 149.68, p < 0.001).
Neither higher nor lower dose vitamin D supplementation prevented hip fracture. Randomised and observational data on vitamin D and hip fracture appear to differ. The reason for this is unclear; one possible explanation is uncontrolled confounding in observational studies. Post-fracture PTH levels are unrelated to hip fracture risk.
Vitamin D supplementation is widely considered to be an important therapy for the prevention of fracture and use for this purpose is both widespread and recommended, with and without calcium [1–3]. Previous meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials found either no significant effect of vitamin D on fracture risk [4, 5] or have been interpreted as indicating that vitamin D doses of ≥700-800 IU/day  or "received doses" of ≥400 IU/day  are required to prevent fracture. Notably, however, key higher dose trials in these latter meta-analyses were trials of placebo versus combined vitamin D plus calcium supplementation [8–11] and calcium supplementation is now known to have an independent protective effect on fracture . This raises questions on the efficacy and necessity of vitamin D supplementation independent of calcium.
Hip fracture is the most serious outcome of osteoporosis and an important and increasing health problem. It is common amongst older individuals and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. In 2000, there were estimated 1.6 million hip fractures worldwide  and mortality in the year following hip fracture is estimated at 20-30% . The social and economic burden of hip fractures worldwide is expected to increase significantly over the next 50 years due to ageing populations, especially within developing countries [15–17]. Identification of interventions that can prevent hip fractures remains a key research priority and vitamin D is an appealing therapy to fulfil this role.
In addition to the randomised data, the opinions and practices of researchers, clinicians and communities are likely to be influenced by factors including observational studies and the longstanding knowledge of the relationship between vitamin D and osteomalacia. In the face of the continuing uncertainty and the need for firm evidence to guide practice, an up to date and broader quantitative examination of the evidence regarding vitamin D and fracture is warranted. Shrier et al suggest that the advantages of examining different levels of evidence by including observational studies with RCTs in meta-analyses may outweigh the disadvantages . This study is designed to be the first summary of the available serological evidence on both vitamin D and PTH in relation to hip fracture, and the first meta-analysis of case-control studies on this topic.
Search Strategy and Eligibility
We applied the inclusion and exclusion criteria below to studies identified through searches of the PubMed and Web of Science databases, additional articles identified from the reference lists of sourced papers, hand searching of relevant journals and forward citations searches of key papers, to include publications up to April 2009.
A randomised controlled trial including a minimum of 100 participants combined across vitamin D treatment (cholecalciferol or ergocalciferol) and control groups, with at least one radiologically confirmed hip fracture in each group; b) A case-control study including a minimum of 50 cases of hip fracture together with specified control participants and post-fracture serum 25(OH)D (the usual blood measure of vitamin D status) and/or PTH levels. Studies must have reported sufficient data to allow the calculation of a mean and standard deviation for serological measurements; or c) A cohort study recording confirmed incident hip fracture and the relationship to serum 25(OH)D levels ascertained from prospectively collected blood samples.
Exclusion criteria included randomised controlled studies that used vitamin D treatment combined with other therapies such that the individual effect of vitamin D could not be established [8–11]; studies that included hip fractures as a component of all fractures but without individual counts; and studies published as abstracts only.
Although only studies from English-language publications were included, PubMed encompasses abstracts from non-English publications. This revealed only one relevant non-English language study  and this abstract provided similar results to the other studies that were included.
Data were independently extracted by three reviewers (JL, EB, RL) and discrepant results reconciled through arbitration. Two of the reviewers (EB and RL) are researchers and specialist public health physicians and one (JL) has qualifications in statistics. Adjusted results were used where possible. JL conducted the quality assessment.
Quality Assessment of included studies
Randomised controlled trials were assessed for quality based upon allocation concealment, blinding of interventions, and the total loss to follow up. Lower quality studies were those considered to be inadequate in any of the above areas (no allocation concealment, no blinding of interventions or >25% loss to follow up) including studies where the description presented was not clear. We investigated heterogeneity between lower and higher quality studies.
For observational studies, the quality assessment was based upon adjustment for confounding (none = 1 point, age and sex = 2 points, age and sex plus other possible confounders = 3 points), the selection of cases and controls over a comparable time period (1 point for same period or season), and the adequate description of patient characteristics (1 point for inclusion of characteristics such as residential status, sunshine exposure, calcium intake and medical history). These broad criteria were taken from the list of most commonly used measures in a review of quality assessments of observational studies . Adjustment for confounding was weighted more heavily as it was considered the best proxy for study quality. Based upon the number of points scored out of a maximum of 5, each study was given a quality rating from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest). We investigated heterogeneity between lower quality studies (1 and 2) compared to higher quality studies (3, 4 and 5).
Statistical analysis and presentation of results
For the randomised controlled trials we tabulated the measure of association for hip fracture comparing vitamin D treatment and control groups. Some studies provided the hazard ratio from a Cox Proportional Hazards model. For studies where this was not available, we calculated the relative risk from raw data [21, 22]. To check the validity of directly comparing these measures of association, we calculated the relative risk (RR) (from the raw data) for all studies and performed a sensitivity analysis using a standard t-test with unequal variances to compare the results obtained by this method to those using the adjusted hazard ratio. This revealed that the treatment effects using both methods were statistically equal (p = 0.99) and as such the adjusted results were used where possible. Outcomes were analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. We examined heterogeneity of results according to the type and dose of vitamin D used, mode of administration, use of placebo, reported levels of compliance, and according to whether or not participants were community dwelling or institutionalized, using the Cochrane Q statistic [23, 24] with the p-value obtained from a chi-squared distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom. Overall heterogeneity between individual studies was investigated using the Cochrane Q statistic in addition to the H and I2 statistics with the p-value obtained from a standard normal distribution. The I2 statistic is a transformation of the H statistic and represents 'the proportion of variance attributable to heterogeneity'. Further details on its calculation are outlined in Higgins et al . Cut-offs for heterogeneity were taken at p = 0.05. We tested for publication bias using funnel plots and asymmetry determined using Egger's linear regression approach with the p-value obtained from a t-distribution with n-2 degrees of freedom .
Most case-control studies reported the mean and standard deviation of serum 25(OH)D levels directly. However, in studies where participants were stratified according to gender or season, we obtained the combined standard deviation from the usual ANOVA sum-of-squares breakdown.
Within case-control studies, 25(OH)D and PTH measurements of hip fracture patients and controls were compared using a ratio estimator of the respective means. To account for the positively skewed distribution common in serological measurements a logarithmic transformation of the data was used to better approximate normality. As most studies reported only the arithmetic mean and standard error, it was necessary to estimate the geometric mean and standard error on the log transformed scale using asymptotic Taylor series approximations. Details of the methodology used are outlined in Higgins et al .
Results were summarised across studies using the weighted average of the study-specific log ratios, with each individual weight inversely proportional to its estimated variance. Graphically log ratios are represented as black squares with areas proportional to their weights indicating the amount of statistical information for each particular study. The corresponding confidence interval (CI) is drawn as a line extending from the estimated log ratio.
We decided a priori to test for heterogeneity according to the use of population- or hospital- based controls. Hospital-based controls were defined as hospital inpatients or outpatients identified for inclusion in the study either during or as a direct result of diagnostic or medical treatment. All other controls drawn from home-based or housing for the elderly populations were taken as population-based controls. We further tested for heterogeneity due to geographical location, mean age of controls, time between fracture and serum collection, and type of vitamin D assay.
Major results from cohort studies were presented as reported in the original studies. A meta-analysis of estimates was not possible due to the different cut points for serum 25(OH)D from each study.
Randomised controlled trials
Summary of identified randomised controlled trials
Study first author (country) year
Mean age (years)
Eqv daily dose and type
Mode of admin
25(OH)D Baseline nmol/L
25(OH)D Baseline nmol/L
Vit D/ Control
Vitamin D vs. Placebo/No treatment trials
Lips  (Netherlands) 1996
Community & limited care residents
Meyer  (Norway) 2002
Nursing home residents
Trivedi  (UK) 2003
Community Doctors' and GP registry
Grant  (UK) 2005
Community residents with previous fracture
Law  (UK) 2006
Residential care and nursing home residents
Lyons  (UK) 2007
Residential, nursing homes and sheltered housing residents
Smith  (UK) 2007
Vitamin D and Calcium vs. Calcium trials
Grant  (UK) 2005
Community residents with previous fracture
800 IU D3 + 1000 mg Calcium(daily)
Vitamin D status
A total of 17 eligible studies of hip fracture and serum 25(OH)D levels were identified, including a total of 1903 hip fracture cases and 1953 control participants [34–50]. Eleven studies specified the time at which blood samples were obtained and all but one gave the assay method used to determine 25(OH)D concentration. The collection of sera ranged from the point of admission to hospital up to a maximum mean of 35 days post-fracture. The reported average age in all studies for both cases and controls ranged from 69  to 84 years .
Of the 17 case-control studies, nine were population-based [34–36, 38–42, 44] and eight were hospital-based [37, 43, 45–50]. There was a strong relationship between control type and year of publication. Eight of the nine studies published in 1992 or earlier were population-based case-control studies whilst seven of the remaining eight studies published in 1995 or later were hospital-based case-control studies.
Characteristics of Hip fracture case-control studies
Study first author (location) year
Mean Age (SD) years
25(OH)D (SD) nmol/L
PTH (SD) pmol/L
Mean Age (SD) years
25(OH)D (SD) nmol/L
PTH (SD) pmol/L
Population based controls
Cases: Consecutive patients
Controls: Elderly participants without malabsorption, hepatic or renal disease
Cases: Consecutive admissions of Caucasian females
Controls: Home-based age and sex matched selected from electoral register
Cases: Patients admitted from Sept 1978- July 1979
Controls: Healthy age, sex and season matched
Cases: Female hip fracture patients operated on by author
Controls: Home-based, ambulant elderly females
Cases: Hip fracture patients
(CPB after HPLC)
Controls: Healthy, independent volunteers living in apartment house for elderly
On day of admission
Cases: Consecutive patients
(Hong Kong) 1989
Controls: Sheltered housing residents
Within 12 h admission
Cases: Female hip fracture patients
(Hong Kong) 1990
Controls: Healthy female participants over 60 y
Within 24 h admission pre-surgery
Cases: Unselected Chinese female patients admitted to orthopaedic ward
(Hong Kong) 1992
Controls: Hostel for elderly, no fracture history
Within 18 h fracture pre-surgery
Cases: Consecutive female patients
Controls: Female, age matched, from general practices
Community based controls
Von Knorring 
Prior to surgery
Cases: Patients admitted during 2 month periods in summer, winter and early spring
Controls: Age and sex matched non-orthopaedic outpatients or minor surgery patients
Within 24 h admission
Cases: Consecutively admitted patients
Controls: Patients in geriatric or rheumatology unit with no bone disease or fracture history
5-18 post fracture
Cases: Consecutive admissions of original hip fracture caused by fall from standing height or less
Controls: Age and sex matched emergency patients with no fracture history
Di Monaco 
During hosp mean 35 days post fracture
Cases: Caucasian patients sustaining original hip fracture
Controls: Home-based elderly over 65 y referred for first osteodensiometry, no fracture history
Within 24 h fracture
Cases: Self-sufficient, community-living female patients with adequate sunlight admitted between May-Dec 1999
Controls: Metabolic disease unit outpatients with osteoporosis, no evident osteoporotic fractures admitted between Jul-Nov 1999. Otherwise as per cases
Within 3 days admission
Cases: Low trauma fracture patients
Controls: Patients of ophthalmology unit with no fracture
Within 24 h admission (RIA)
Cases: Sampled patients admitted to Orthogeriatric unit between Nov 2004-Mar 2005
Controls: Age, sex and place matched Acute Care unit patients admitted for non-bone reasons
Cases: Sado Island residents admitted to hospital from Jan-Dec 2004
Controls: Orthopaedic patients with no fracture admitted between Jul-Dec 2004
Studies using population-based controls included 818 hip fracture cases and 837 controls. There was significant heterogeneity (χ2 8 = 76.28, p < 0.001 and H = 3.09, I2 = 89.5%, p < 0.001) largely driven by three outlying studies [34, 36, 44], however the direction of the difference was consistent in all but one study. The weighted average of log ratios showed around 40% (log ratio -0.51) lower serum vitamin D levels in hip fracture cases compared with population-based controls.
The hospital-based case-control studies included 1085 hip fracture cases and 1116 controls. In seven of the eight studies, cases had significantly lower serum 25(OH)D concentrations than controls. The combined log ratio showed around 24% (log ratio -0.28) lower serum vitamin D levels in hip fracture patients compared to hospital-based controls with no significant heterogeneity (χ2 7 = 10.62, p = 0.156 and H = 1.23, I2 = 34.1%, p = 0.319). The summary results for population-based and hospital-based case-control studies differed significantly (χ2 1 = 51.02, p < 0.001).
Overall, in 15 of the 17 case-control studies hip fracture patients had significantly lower 25(OH)D levels than controls. A total combined estimate showed around 33% (log ratio -0.40) lower 25(OH)D level in cases compared to controls, although significant heterogeneity existed between studies (χ2 16 = 137.9, p < 0.001 and H = 2.94, I2 = 88.4%, p < 0.001). This broad summary should therefore be regarded with caution.
Seven studies were identified as lower quality studies with a rating of either 1 [34, 40] or 2 [38, 41, 42, 46, 48]. Comparing these studies with the higher quality studies with ratings 3 [37, 43, 47, 50], 4 [35, 36, 39, 45], or 5 [44, 49], there were no signs of heterogeneity (χ2 1 = 0.14, p = 0.71). There was no evidence of publication bias.
There was significant and substantial heterogeneity between study results within both the subgroups of population-based case-control and hospital-based case-control studies. After combining the estimates, there was no significant difference between the PTH levels in cases and controls (difference in cases compared to controls 12%, log ratio 0.11) although substantial heterogeneity was evident overall (χ2 9 = 149.68, p < 0.001, and H = 4.08, I2 = 94%, p < 0.001) and this summary result should therefore be interpreted with caution. Two studies were identified as lower quality studies with a rating of 2 [42, 48]. There were no signs of heterogeneity between studies with lower, compared to higher (3 [37, 43, 47, 50], 4 [39, 45], or 5 [44, 49]), quality ratings (χ2 1 = 2.52, p = 0.112).
Characteristics of cohort studies
Study First author (country) year
Follow up time
Mean age years
Study of Osteoporotic Fractures
Up to 5.9 years
< 47.5 nmol/L vs. ≥47.5 nmol/L 25(OH)D
Cummings  (USA) 1998
73 years (using randomly selected cases and controls)
RR Hip fracture 1.2 (0.7, 1.9)
Up to 9.3 years
Each 25 nmol/L decrease in 25(OH)D R Hip fracture 1.33 (1.06, 1.68)
Cauley  (USA) 2008
(median 7.1 years)
≤47.5 nmol/L vs. ≥70.7 nmol/L OR Hip fracture 1.71 (1.05, 2.79)
Mean 6.7 y
≥65 y Caucasian adults
≥62.5 nmol/L vs. <62.5 nmol/L 25(OH)D
Looker  (USA) 2008
RR Hip fracture 0.64 (0.46, 0.89)
This meta-analysis shows no significant difference in the risk of hip fracture between individuals randomised to receive either vitamin D supplements or placebo/control. In particular, no significant benefit for hip fracture was shown in trials randomising participants to receive high dose vitamin D (i.e. doses of 800 IU per day or greater). In apparent contrast, case-control studies show substantially and significantly lower serum 25(OH)D levels in persons with hip fractures compared to controls.
Strengths and Weaknesses
A strength of this meta-analysis is the presentation of a comprehensive collection of randomised controlled trials, case-control studies and cohort studies, allowing a broader comparison of published results than previously considered. The effect of vitamin D supplementation was separated from that of other medications in the RCT data. Clearly defined methods were used in the selection of the studies and analysis of the results to ensure validity and consistency. Furthermore, this represents the first summary of serological evidence on both vitamin D and PTH in relation to hip fracture, and the first meta-analysis of case-control studies on this topic. By placing the evidence of the case-control studies alongside the results of the randomised controlled trials we highlight the complexity of the problem and the difficulty in drawing adequate conclusions.
This study is constrained by the detail and quality of published data of the respective studies included. Many of the case-control studies were relatively small, contained few hip fractures and reported highly variable serum measurements. Individual participant data were rarely published especially in larger studies, limiting a more detailed analysis of patient characteristics. The substantial heterogeneity in the results of the population-based case control studies of 25(OH)D and hip fracture, and the studies of PTH levels mean that the summary results should be considered as providing a broad indication of the overall direction of study findings, rather than a precise estimate of the combined study results. Despite some studies being of lower quality, investigations revealed no heterogeneity between results of higher and lower quality studies, both for randomised controlled trials and case-control studies.
Other potential limitations may include measurement error in 25(OH)D levels from poor assay standardisation , misclassification bias in hip fracture status or publication bias from the inclusion of smaller studies.
There have been several meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials published on this topic. A Cochrane review showed similar results for hip fracture risk to the present study with a summary RR of 1.15 (95%CI, 0.99-1.33), in individuals randomised to receive vitamin D compared to placebo or control . A pooled analysis of individual level randomised controlled trial data showed a borderline statistically non-significant decrease in hip fracture risk from vitamin D + calcium supplementation and no reduction in risk from vitamin D supplementation alone . However, these reviews did not consider results from observational studies or the role of PTH as we have done here. Shrier et al suggest that the advantages of including observational studies with RCTs in meta-analyses may outweigh the disadvantages . By considering the evidence in its entirety we are able to offer plausible hypotheses for the apparent null effect seen in RCTs.
Several explanations have been previously proposed for the null Randomised Controlled Trial results. A previous meta-analysis of the relationship between vitamin D supplementation and overall fracture risk stratified by dosage concluded that supplementation of 700-800 IU/d is necessary to reduce non-vertebral fractures . This was followed up most recently by the same authors with another meta-analysis supporting the same conclusion of a dose-dependence . However, these studies did not assess the impact of vitamin D alone but rather included combined treatments with calcium, and calcium alone has been shown to have a significant impact on fracture risk . The latter meta-analysis of calcium treatment reported that the addition of trials of vitamin D + calcium to calcium-only trial results did not change the treatment effect significantly. The RR (95%CI) for fractures at all sites for calcium-only supplementation compared to placebo was 0.90 (95%CI, 0.80-1.00), which became 0.87 (95%CI, 0.77-0.97) when calcium + vitamin D versus placebo trial results were added; these RR did not differ significantly from one another (p = 0.63). This highlights the critical question of whether vitamin D supplementation is itself effective, either with or without calcium supplementation.
Explaining the inconsistent randomised and observational results
Where randomised and observational evidence are inconsistent, it is generally most appropriate to place more weight on the randomised evidence for clinical decision making. Although the reason for the apparent difference between the randomised and observational evidence on vitamin D and hip fracture is not known, there are a number of possible explanations, the most obvious being that the results of the observational studies may be affected by uncontrolled confounding. The risk of hip fracture is increased by many factors such as advancing age, lack of physical activity, low body mass index, smoking, co-morbidities and frailty. Many of these factors are also likely to reduce exposure to sunlight and therefore vitamin D levels. Since only six of the case-control studies summarised here accounted for age and none adjusted for current illness or disability, it seems likely that the results of the observational studies may be subject to residual confounding. This is supported by our finding of a greater difference in 25(OH)D levels in case-control studies using population rather than hospital controls. Previous studies suggest hospital patients and nursing home residents may have frailty patterns more comparable to hip fracture patients and have lower 25(OH)D levels compared to independent elderly participants  who are likely more ambulant and healthier. One of the cohort studies did attempt to adjust for frailty and physical functioning  and these factors were found to attenuate the association between low serum vitamin D status and hip fracture risk, although it remained marginally statistically significant. Further similar investigations are necessary to better quantify the likely impact of such confounding and may help explain these conflicting results.
A second explanation is that vitamin D is indeed beneficial and the randomised controlled trials may not have been able to detect this effect. There may have been inadequate power in the trials because of limited follow up and the relatively small number of recorded hip fractures. However the results of a Cochrane review of all fracture sites (summary RR = 1.01 [95%CI, 0.93-1.09]), including more events with greater statistical power, and vertebral fractures only (RR = 0.90 [95%CI, 0.42-1.92]) were similar to those reported here, in individuals randomised to receive vitamin D compared to placebo or control . Performing the analysis on an intention-to-treat basis is consistent with recommendations  although it may obscure the effect of poor adherence to treatment or follow up that may reduce the observed treatment effect. However, not all studies reported detailed information on adherence rates and of those that did, four estimated the proportion of adherent participants greater than 75% [22, 29–31], and only one study reported lower adherence to treatment of around 50% . This latter study reported a similar treatment effect compared to other studies where there was better adherence.
Another proposed explanation for the different findings of RCTs and observational studies, in particular the lack of a significant treatment effect in the RCTs, is that the doses of vitamin D used in many of the studies may have been too low to achieve hip fracture reduction. Some studies suggest that a minimum supplementation of 700-800 IU/d is necessary to reduce non-vertebral fractures . However as already noted, the treatment effect of trials within this dosage range were not found to differ significantly from those in lower dose trials in the present meta-analysis. Furthermore, the doses of vitamin D supplementation used in both high and low dose randomised controlled trials resulted in increases in serum 25(OH)D levels that were similar to, or in excess of, the differences between cases and controls in the observational data [21, 29, 30, 32, 33]. This suggests that the apparent discrepancies between the observational and randomised data are unlikely to be explained by dose alone; it remains possible, though currently unsupported, that very high doses of vitamin D could prevent fracture.
Finally, it is possible that some other factor, such as exposure to sunlight or genotypic factors, independently reduces hip fracture risk and is related to increased serum 25(OH)D levels, but is not simulated by vitamin D supplementation.
PTH and hip fracture
There was no significant difference between PTH levels in hip fracture cases and controls. Low 25(OH)D levels lead to a small decrease in serum 1,25(OH)2D and calcium absorption that in turn stimulates the secretion of PTH to maintain adequate 1,25(OH)2D production and calcium homeostasis . This secondary hyperparathyroidism leads to increased bone turnover, bone loss and possibly increased hip fracture risk. It might be expected then that hip fracture patients compared to controls would have elevated PTH measurements consistent with lower 25(OH)D levels. This was not evident although there was significant heterogeneity between studies.
The heterogeneity was not attributable to the timing of sera collection or stratification by population-based or hospital-based controls. However, PTH can vary significantly over a short period and the impact on serum measurements from fracture and subsequent trauma is not well understood. One study showed elevated PTH levels immediately after hip fracture that fell significantly two weeks later , while others have reported serum levels increasing  or remaining stable  during hip fracture recovery. Comparatively, 25(OH)D has a much longer half-life in circulation and studies have consistently showed no changes in 25(OH)D levels from post-fracture through to recovery [58, 61].
Implications and future research
Despite the null findings from the randomised controlled trials, vitamin D is widely recommended and used with the aim of preventing fracture. Current guidelines for bone health support both vitamin D supplementation only, starting from as little as 400 IU/day for individuals who may be sunlight deprived , and combined vitamin D and calcium supplementation, as part of broader osteoporosis treatment . However despite current practice, the question still remains of whether vitamin D itself is actually effective. There is insufficient evidence at present to support widespread vitamin D supplementation for fracture prevention. In particular, lack of consistency within the epidemiological evidence highlights the possible impact of bias and confounding, as well as uncertainties on dosage and therapy requirements.
The issue of confounding between vitamin D, physical activity and comorbidity has implications beyond the investigation of vitamin D and fracture. Physical activity, and related body mass index, influences the risk of a wide range of conditions and frailty and co-morbidity have profound impacts on survival. Recently, low vitamin D has been suggested as a risk factor for a number of conditions, including prostate cancer , breast cancer [63, 64], type 1 and 2 diabetes , hypertension , multiple sclerosis [67, 68] and is speculated to reduce survival from melanoma . These types of observations are potentially affected by similar issues to those outlined here and high quality evidence, ensuring that potential confounding factors have been properly taken into account, is required before definitive conclusions can be reached regarding the effects of vitamin D. It should also be borne in mind that a number of previous observational studies showed reduced rates of cancer and other diseases in individuals taking supplements such as beta-carotene, vitamin A and vitamin E . Subsequent randomised controlled trials revealed that these supplements did not significantly prevent disease  and in the case of beta-carotene led to an increased risk of cancer and cardiovascular disease in smokers [72, 73].
The way forward for fracture should focus upon strengthening the evidence, informed by the results of previous studies. Specifically, observational studies with tighter control for confounding are likely to be informative. Randomised controlled trials using larger vitamin D doses and combined vitamin D and calcium therapies (versus calcium alone), with appropriate control groups may also contribute to our understanding. Studies should account appropriately for factors such as age, physical activity, functional capacity and appropriate lifestyle factors when assessing the relationship between vitamin D status and hip fracture. Genetic studies examining factors relating to 25(OH)D levels may also provide useful insights for future research [74–76].
A summary of the best available evidence shows that neither higher nor lower dose vitamin D supplementation prevents hip fracture. Randomised and observational findings on vitamin D and hip fracture appear to differ. The reason for this is unclear; one possible explanation is uncontrolled confounding in observational studies.
Funding sources: This work was supported by the following agencies. Prof Banks is supported by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Senior Research Fellowship. Dr Lucas is supported by a Multiple Sclerosis Research Australia Fellowship and the Royal Australasian College of Physicians Cottrell Fellowship. Dr Clements is supported by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Career Development Award.
Role of funders in research: The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
- Working Group of the Australian and New Zealand Bone and Mineral Society, Endocrine Society of Australia and Osteoporosis Australia: Vitamin D and adult bone health in Australia and New Zealand: a position statement. Med J Aust. 2005, 182 (6): 281-285.Google Scholar
- Bischoff-Ferrari HA: How to select the doses of vitamin D in the management of osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int. 2007, 18 (4): 401-407. 10.1007/s00198-006-0293-9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Qaseem A, Snow V, Shekelle P, Hopkins R, Forciea MA, Owens DK: Pharmacologic treatment of low bone density or osteoporosis to prevent fractures: a clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2008, 149 (6): 404-415.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Avenell A, Gillespie WJ, Gillespie LD, O'Connell DL: Vitamin D and vitamin D analogues for preventing fractures associated with involutional and post-menopausal osteoporosis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2005, CD000227-3
- Avenell A, Gillespie WJ, Gillespie LD, O'Connell D: Vitamin D and vitamin D analogues for preventing fractures associated with involutional and post-menopausal osteoporosis. Cochrane Database Systematic Reviews. 2009, CD000227-2
- Bischoff-Ferrari HA, Willett WC, Wong JB, Giovannucci E, Dietrich T, Dawson-Hughes B: Fracture prevention with vitamin D supplementation - A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. JAMA. 2005, 293 (18): 2257-2264. 10.1001/jama.293.18.2257.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Bischoff-Ferrari HA, Willett WC, Wong JB, Stuck AE, Staehelin HB, Orav EJ, Thoma A, Kiel DP, Henschkowski J: Prevention of nonvertebral fractures with oral vitamin D and dose dependency: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arch Intern Med. 2009, 169 (6): 551-561. 10.1001/archinternmed.2008.600.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Chapuy MC, Arlot ME, Delmas PD, Meunier PJ: Effect of Calcium and Cholecalciferol Treatment for 3 Years on Hip-Fractures in Elderly Women. Br Med J. 1994, 308 (6936): 1081-1082.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- DawsonHughes B, Harris SS, Krall EA, Dallal GE: Effect of calcium and vitamin D supplementation on bone density in men and women 65 years of age or older. N Engl J Med. 1997, 337 (10): 670-676. 10.1056/NEJM199709043371003.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Chapuy MC, Pamphile R, Paris E, Kempf C, Schlichting M, Arnaud S, Garnero P, Meunier PJ: Combined calcium and vitamin D-3 supplementation in elderly women: Confirmation of reversal of secondary hyperparathyroidism and hip fracture risk: The Decalyos II study. Osteoporos Int. 2002, 13 (3): 257-264. 10.1007/s001980200023.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Jackson RD, LaCroix AZ, Gass M, Wallace RB, Robbins J, Lewis CE, Bassford T, Beresford SAA, Black HR, Blanchette P, et al: Calcium plus vitamin D supplementation and the risk of fractures. Engl J Med. 2006, 354 (7): 669-683. 10.1056/NEJMoa055218.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Tang BMP, Eslick GD, Nowson C, Smith C, Bensoussan A: Use of calcium or calcium in combination with vitamin D supplementation to prevent fractures and bone loss in people aged 50 years and older: a meta-analysis. Lancet. 2007, 370 (9588): 657-666. 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61342-7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Johnell O, Kanis JA: An estimate of the worldwide prevalence and disability associated with osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int. 2006, 17 (12): 1726-1733. 10.1007/s00198-006-0172-4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Johnell O, Kanis J: Epidemiology of osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int. 2005, 16 (Suppl 2): S3-7. 10.1007/s00198-004-1702-6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Cooper C, Campion G, Melton LJ: Hip-Fractures in the Elderly - a Worldwide Projection. Osteoporos Int. 1992, 2 (6): 285-289. 10.1007/BF01623184.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Gullberg B, Johnell O, Kanis JA: World-wide projections for hip fracture. Osteoporos Int. 1997, 7 (5): 407-413. 10.1007/PL00004148.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Harvey N, Dennison E, Cooper C: Osteoporosis: impact on health and economics. Nat Rev Rheumatol. 6 (2): 99-105. 10.1038/nrrheum.2009.260.
- Shrier I, Boivin JF, Steele RJ, Platt RW, Furlan A, Kakuma R, Brophy J, Rossignol M: Should meta-analyses of interventions include observational studies in addition to randomized controlled trials? A critical examination of underlying principles. Am J Epidemiol. 2007, 166 (10): 1203-1209. 10.1093/aje/kwm189.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Martinez ME, delCampo MT, Garcia JA, SanchezCabezudo MJ, Medina S, Cimbrelo EG, Munuera L: Vitamin D concentrations in patients with hip fracture in Madrid Spain. Med Clin (Barc). 1996, 106 (2): 41-44.Google Scholar
- Mallen C, Peat G, Croft P: Quality assessment of observational studies is not commonplace in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006, 59 (8): 765-769. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.12.010.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Grant AM, Anderson FH, Avenell A, Campbell MK, Cooper C, Donaldson C, Francis RM, Gillespie WJ, Robinson CM, Torgerson DJ, et al: Oral vitamin D3 and calcium for secondary prevention of low-trauma fractures in elderly people (Randomised Evaluation of Calcium Or vitamin D RECORD): a randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2005, 365 (9471): 1621-1628. 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)63013-9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lyons RA, Johansen A, Brophy S, Newcombe RG, Phillips CJ, Lervy B, Evans R, Wareham K, Stone MD: Preventing fractures among older people living in institutional care: a pragmatic randomised double blind placebo controlled trial of vitamin D supplementation. Osteoporos Int. 2007, 18 (6): 811-818. 10.1007/s00198-006-0309-5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Cochran WG: The Combination of Estimates from Different Experiments. Biometrics. 1954, 10 (1): 101-129. 10.2307/3001666.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Cooper H, Hedges LV, (Eds.): The Handbook of Research Synthesis. 1994, New York: Russel Sage Foundation
- Higgins JPT, Thompson SG: Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002, 21 (11): 1539-1558. 10.1002/sim.1186.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, Minder C: Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple graphical test. Br Med J. 1997, 315 (7109): 629-634.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Higgins JP, White IR, Anzures-Cabrera J: Meta-analysis of skewed data: combining results reported on log-transformed or raw scales. Stat Med. 2008, 27 (29): 6072-6092. 10.1002/sim.3427.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Team RDC: R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. 2.5.1 edition. 2007, Vienna Austria R Foundation for Statistical ComputingGoogle Scholar
- Lips P, Graafmans WC, Ooms ME, Bezemer PD, Bouter LM: Vitamin D supplementation and fracture incidence in elderly persons - A randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial. Ann Intern Med. 1996, 124 (4): 400-&.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Meyer HE, Smedshaug GB, Kvaavik E, Falch JA, Tverdal A, Pedersen JI: Can vitamin D supplementation reduce the risk of fracture in the elderly? A randomized controlled trial. J Bone Miner Res. 2002, 17 (4): 709-715. 10.1359/jbmr.2002.17.4.709.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Trivedi DP, Doll R, Khaw KT: Effect of four monthly oral vitamin D-3 (cholecalciferol) supplementation on fractures and mortality in men and women living in the community randomised double blind controlled trial. Br Med J. 2003, 326 (7387): 469-472. 10.1136/bmj.326.7387.469.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Law M, Withers H, Morris J, Anderson F: Vitamin D supplementation and the prevention of fractures and falls results of a randomised trial in elderly people in residential accommodation. Age Ageing. 2006, 35 (5): 482-486. 10.1093/ageing/afj080.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Smith H, Anderson F, Raphael H, Maslin P, Crozier S, Cooper C: Effect of annual intramuscular vitamin D on fracture risk in elderly men and womena population-based, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2007, 46 (12): 1852-1857. 10.1093/rheumatology/kem240.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Lund B, Sorensen OH, Christensen AB: 25-Hydroxycholecalciferol and Fractures of Proximal Femur. Lancet. 1975, 2 (7929): 300-302. 10.1016/S0140-6736(75)92732-4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Baker MR, McDonnell H, Peacock M, Nordin BEC: Plasma 25-Hydroxy Vitamin-D Concentrations in Patients with Fractures of the Femoral-Neck. Br Med J. 1979, 1 (6163): 589-589. 10.1136/bmj.1.6163.589.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Hoikka V, Alhava EM, Savolainen K, Parviainen M: Osteomalacia in Fractures of the Proximal Femur. Acta Orthop Scand. 1982, 53 (2): 255-260. 10.3109/17453678208992212.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Vonknorring J, Slatis P, Weber TH, Helenius T: Serum Levels of 25-Hydroxyvitamin-D, 24,25-Dihydroxyvitamin-D and Parathyroid-Hormone in Patients with Femoral-Neck Fracture in Southern Finland. Clin Endocrinol (Oxford). 1982, 17 (2): 189-194. 10.1111/j.1365-2265.1982.tb01578.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Morris HA, Morrison GW, Burr M, Thomas DW, Nordin BEC: Vitamin-D and Femoral-Neck Fractures in Elderly South Australian Women. Med J Aust. 1984, 140 (9): 519-521.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lips P, van Ginkel FC, Jongen MJ, Rubertus F, van der Vijgh WJ, Netelenbos JC: Determinants of vitamin D status in patients with hip fracture and in elderly control subjects. Am J Clin Nutr. 1987, 46 (6): 1005-1010.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lau EMC, Woo J, Swaminathan R, Macdonald D, Donnan SPB: Plasma 25-Hydroxyvitamin-D Concentration in Patients with Hip Fracture in Hong-Kong. Gerontology. 1989, 35 (4): 198-204. 10.1159/000213023.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Pun KK, Wong FHW, Wang C, Lau P, Ho PWM, Pun WK, Chow SP, Cheng CL, Leong JCY, Young RTT: Vitamin-D Status among Patients with Fractured Neck of Femur in Hong-Kong. Bone. 1990, 11 (5): 365-368. 10.1016/8756-3282(90)90092-D.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Macdonald D, Lau E, Chan ELP, Mak T, Woo J, Leung PC, Swaminathan R: Serum Intact Parathyroid-Hormone Levels in Elderly Chinese Females with Hip Fracture. Calcif Tissue Int. 1992, 51 (6): 412-414. 10.1007/BF00296672.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Benhamou CL, Tourliere D, Gauvain JB, Picaper G, Audran M, Jallet P: Calciotropic Hormones in Elderly People with and without Hip Fracture. Osteoporos Int. 1995, 5 (2): 103-107. 10.1007/BF01623311.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Boonen S, Broos P, Verbeke G, Aerssens J, VanHerck E, Jans I, Dequeker J, Bouillon R: Calciotropic hormones and markers of bone remodeling in age-related (type II) femoral neck osteoporosis Alterations consistent with secondary hyperparathyroidism-induced bone resorption. Journals of Gerontology Series a-Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences. 1997, 52 (5): M286-M293.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Thiebaud D, Burckhardt P, Costanza M, Sloutskis D, Gilliard D, Quinodoz F, Jacquet AF, Burnand B: Importance of albumin 25(OH)-vitamin D and IGFBP-3 as risk factors in elderly women and men with hip fracture. Osteoporos Int. 1997, 7 (5): 457-462. 10.1007/s001980050033.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Di Monaco M, Vallero F, Di Monaco R, Mautino F, Cavanna A: Primary hyperparathyroidism in elderly patients with hip fracture. J Bone Miner Metab. 2004, 22 (5): 491-495.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Nuti R, Martini G, Valenti R, Gambera D, Gennari L, Salvadori S, Avanzati A: Vitamin D status and bone turnover in women with acute hip fracture. Clin Orthop. 2004, 208-213. 422
- Bakhtiyarova S, Lesnyak O, Kyznesova N, Blankenstein MA, Lips P: Vitamin D status among patients with hip fracture and elderly control subjects in Yekaterinburg Russia. Osteoporos Int. 2006, 17 (3): 441-446. 10.1007/s00198-005-0006-9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Giusti A, Barone A, Razzano M, Pizzonia M, Oliveri M, Palummeri E, Pioli G: High prevalence of secondary hyperparathyroidism due to hypovitaminosis D in hospitalized elderly with and without hip fracture. J Endocrinol Invest. 2006, 29 (9): 809-813.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Sakuma M, Endo N, Oinuma T, Hayami T, Endo E, Yazawa T, Watanabe K, Watanabe S: Vitamin D and intact PTH status in patients with hip fracture. Osteoporos Int. 2006, 17 (11): 1608-1614. 10.1007/s00198-006-0167-1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Cummings SR, Browner WS, Bauer D, Stone K, Ensrud K, Jamal S, Ettinger B: Endogenous hormones and the risk of hip and vertebral fractures among older women. N Engl J Med. 1998, 339 (11): 733-738. 10.1056/NEJM199809103391104.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Cauley JA, LaCroix AZ, Wu L, Horwitz M, Danielson ME, Bauer DC, Lee JS, Jackson RD, Robbins JA, Wu C, et al: Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations and risk for hip fractures. Ann Intern Med. 2008, 149 (4): 242-250.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Looker AC, Mussolino ME: Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D and hip fracture risk in older US white adults. J Bone Miner Res. 2008, 23 (1): 143-150. 10.1359/jbmr.071003.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lai JK, Lucas RM, Clements MS, Harrison SL, Banks E: Assessing vitamin D status pitfalls for the unwary. Mol Nutr Food Res. 2010,Google Scholar
- DIPART Group: Patient level pooled analysis of 68 500 patients from seven major vitamin D fracture trials in US and Europe. BMJ. 2010, 340: b5463-10.1136/bmj.b5463.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Lips P: Vitamin D deficiency and secondary hyperparathyroidism in the elderly Consequences for bone loss and fractures and therapeutic implications. Endocr Rev. 2001, 22 (4): 477-501. 10.1210/er.22.4.477.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. [http://www.cochrane-handbook.org]
- Ng K, Stjohn A, Bruce DG: Secondary Hyperparathyroidism Vitamin-D Deficiency and Hip Fracture - Importance of Sampling Times after Fracture. Bone Miner. 1994, 25 (2): 103-109. 10.1016/S0169-6009(08)80252-8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Dubin NH, Monahan LK, Yu-Yahiro JA, Michael RH, Zimmerman SI, Hawkes W, Hebel JR, Fox KM, Magaziner J: Serum concentrations of steroids parathyroid hormone and calcitonin in postmenopausal women during the year following hip fracture Effect of location of fracture and age. Journals of Gerontology Series a-Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences. 1999, 54 (9): M467-M473.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Johansen A, Stone MD, Omahony MS, Westlake H, Woodhead JS, Woodhouse KW: Reliability of parathyroid hormone measurements in the period immediately following hip fracture. Age Ageing. 1997, 26 (3): 175-178. 10.1093/ageing/26.3.175.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lips P: Which circulating level of 25-hydroxyvitamin D is appropriate?. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2004, 89-90 (1-5): 611-614. 10.1016/j.jsbmb.2004.03.040.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Huncharek M, Muscat J, Kupelnick B: Dairy products dietary calcium and vitamin D intake as risk factors for prostate cancer A meta-analysis of 26,769 cases from 45 observational studies. Nutrition and Cancer-an International Journal. 2008, 60 (4): 421-441. 10.1080/01635580801911779.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Abbas S, Chang-Claude J, Linseisen J: Plasma 25-hydroxyvitamin D and premenopausal breast cancer risk in a German case-control study. Int J Cancer. 2009, 124 (1): 250-255. 10.1002/ijc.23904.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Blackmore KM, Lesosky M, Barnett H, Raboud JM, Vieth R, Knight JA: Vitamin D from dietary intake and sunlight exposure and the risk of hormone-receptor-defined breast cancer. Am J Epidemiol. 2008, 168 (8): 915-924. 10.1093/aje/kwn198.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Mathieu C, Gysemans C, Giulietti A, Bouillon R: Vitamin D and diabetes. Diabetologia. 2005, 48 (7): 1247-1257. 10.1007/s00125-005-1802-7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Forman JP, Curhan GC, Taylor EN: Plasma 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels and risk of incident hypertension among young women. Hypertension. 2008, 52 (5): 828-832. 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.108.117630.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Munger KL, Zhang SM, O'Reilly E, Hernan MA, Olek MJ, Willett WC, Ascherio A: Vitamin D intake and incidence of multiple sclerosis. Neurology. 2004, 62 (1): 60-65.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Munger KL, Levin LI, Hollis BW, Howard NS, Ascherio A: Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels and risk of multiple sclerosis. JAMA. 2006, 296 (23): 2832-2838. 10.1001/jama.296.23.2832.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Berwick M, Armstrong BK, Ben-Porat L, Fine J, Kricker A, Eberle C, Barnhill R: Sun exposure and mortality from melanoma. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005, 97 (3): 195-199. 10.1093/jnci/dji019.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Peto R, Doll R, Buckley JD, Sporn MB: Can Dietary Beta-Carotene Materially Reduce Human Cancer Rates. Nature. 1981, 290 (5803): 201-208. 10.1038/290201a0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hennekens CH, Buring JE, Manson JE, Stampfer M, Rosner B, Cook NR, Belanger C, LaMotte F, Gaziano JM, Ridker PM, et al: Lack of effect of long-term supplementation with beta carotene on the incidence of malignant neoplasms and cardiovascular disease. N Engl J Med. 1996, 334 (18): 1145-1149. 10.1056/NEJM199605023341801.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- The Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta Carotene Cancer Prevention Study Group: The effect of vitamin E and beta carotene on the incidence of lung cancer and other cancers in male smokers. N Engl J Med. 1994, 330 (15): 1029-1035. 10.1056/NEJM199404143301501.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Omenn GS, Goodman GE, Thornquist MD, Balmes J, Cullen MR, Glass A, Keogh JP, Meyskens FL, Valanis B, Williams JH, et al: Effects of a combination of beta carotene and vitamin A on lung cancer and cardiovascular disease. N Engl J Med. 1996, 334 (18): 1150-1155. 10.1056/NEJM199605023341802.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lauridsen AL, Vestergaard P, Hermann AP, Brot C, Heickendorff L, Mosekilde L, Nexo E: Plasma concentrations of 25-hydroxy-vitamin D and 1,25-dihydroxy-vitamin D are related to the phenotype of Gc (vitamin D-binding protein) A cross-sectional study on 595 - Early postmenopausal women. Calcif Tissue Int. 2005, 77 (1): 15-22. 10.1007/s00223-004-0227-5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Abbas S, Linseisen J, Slanger T, Kropp S, Mutschelknauss EJ, Flesch-Janys D, Chang-Claude J: The Gc2 allele of the vitamin D binding protein is associated with a decreased postmenopausal breast cancer risk independent of the vitamin D status. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention. 2008, 17 (6): 1339-1343. 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-08-0162.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Orton SM, Morris AP, Herrera BM, Ramagopalan SV, Lincoln MR, Chao MJ, Vieth R, Sadovnick AD, Ebers GC: Evidence for genetic regulation of vitamin D status in twins with multiple sclerosis. Am J Clin Nutr. 2008, 88 (2): 441-447.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/10/331/prepub