The evidence shows that vitamin D supplementation provides some benefit in fracture prevention ( likely ∼10–15 % relative reduction ) , particularly at a dose ≥800 IU and with calcium ; a likely benefit in the rate of falls , though it is less clear whether the number of fallers changes ; and a possible small ( ∼5 % ) relative reduction in mortality .
Evidence does not support the use of vitamin D supplementation for the prevention of cancer , respiratory infections or rheumatoid arthritis .
Similarly , evidence does not support vitamin D supplementation for the treatment of multiple sclerosis and rheumatoid arthritis or for improving depression/mental well-being .
Regular testing of 25-hydroxyvitamin D is generally not required , and mega-doses ( ≥300,000 IU ) appear to increase harms .
Over the past decade , a large body of observational evidence has suggested an association between  lower vitamin D status ( 25-hydroxyvitamin D ) and multiple acute and chronic disorders , including cancer , multiple sclerosis , depression and respiratory tract infections .
This evidence has fostered the hypothesis that increasing vitamin D intake may treat and prevent such disorders .
Our objective was to perform a critical analysis of the highest-level evidence for ten common beliefs regarding vitamin D for the prevention of falls , fractures and respiratory tract infections , the reduction of cancer incidence/mortality and overall mortality , and the prevention or treatment of depression/mental well-being , rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis , as well as maximum dosing and regular testing .
How confidence intervals become confusion intervals
Background Controversies are common in medicine . Some arise when the conclusions of research publications directly contradict each other , creating uncertainty for frontline clinicians . Discussion In this paper , we review how research ers can look at very similar data yet have completely different conclusions based purely on an over-reliance of statistical significance and an unclear underst and ing of confidence intervals . The dogmatic adherence to statistical significant thresholds can lead authors to write dichotomized absolute conclusions while ignoring the broader interpretations of very consistent findings . We describe three examples of controversy around the potential benefit of a medication , a comparison between new medications , and a medication with a potential harm . The examples include the highest levels of evidence , both meta-analyses and r and omized controlled trials . We will show how in each case the confidence intervals and point estimates were very similar . The only identifiable differences to account for the contrasting conclusions arise from the serendipitous finding of confidence intervals that either marginally cross or just fail to cross the line of statistical significance . Summary These opposing conclusions are false disagreements that create unnecessary clinical uncertainty . We provide helpful recommendations in approaching conflicting conclusions when they are associated with remarkably similar results
The evidence shows that vitamin D supplementation provides some benefit in fracture prevention ( likely ∼10–15 % relative reduction ) , particularly at a dose ≥800 IU and with calcium ; a likely benefit in the rate of falls , though it is less clear whether the number of fallers changes ; and a possible small ( ∼5 % ) relative reduction in mortality .
Evidence does not support the use of vitamin D supplementation for the prevention of cancer , respiratory infections or rheumatoid arthritis .
Similarly , evidence does not support vitamin D supplementation for the treatment of multiple sclerosis and rheumatoid arthritis or for improving depression/mental well-being .
Regular testing of 25-hydroxyvitamin D is generally not required , and mega-doses ( ≥300,000 IU ) appear to increase harms .
Over the past decade , a large body of observational evidence has suggested an association between  lower vitamin D status ( 25-hydroxyvitamin D ) and multiple acute and chronic disorders , including cancer , multiple sclerosis , depression and respiratory tract infections .
This evidence has fostered the hypothesis that increasing vitamin D intake may treat and prevent such disorders .
Our objective was to perform a critical analysis of the highest-level evidence for ten common beliefs regarding vitamin D for the prevention of falls , fractures and respiratory tract infections , the reduction of cancer incidence/mortality and overall mortality , and the prevention or treatment of depression/mental well-being , rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis , as well as maximum dosing and regular testing .