Scientific opinion on the tolerable upper intake level for vitamin D, including the derivation of a conversion factor for calcidiol monohydrate

. 2023 Aug 8;21(8):e08145. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8145

References	Risk of bias domains ^(a)
	Key Criteria			Other Criterion					Tier ^(b)
	Randomization	Exposure characterization	Outcome assessment	Allocation concealment	Blinding	Attrition	Selective reporting	Other threats to internal validity	Tier ^(b)
*Children and adolescents*
Asghari et al. 2021	++	+	+	NR	−−	–	–	+	2
Belenchia et al. 2013	++	+	NR	++	+	–	++	+	2
Lewis et al. 2013	++	−−	+	++	+	+	++	+	2
Maalouf et al. 2008	NR	++	NR	NR	NR	+	++	+	2
Rajakumar et al. 2020	++	–	NR	++	+	–	++	+	2
Samaranayake et al. 2020	++	NR	NR	++	+	+	++	+	2
*Pregnant and lactating women*
Enkhmaa et al. 2019	++	+	–	++	+	++	++	+	2
Hollis & Wagner 2004	+	+	NR	NR	NR	−−	++	–	2
Hollis et al. 2011	++	–	NR	+	+	–	++	+	2
Roth et al. 2018	++	–	NR	++	+	+	++	+	2
Wagner et al. 2006	++	+	NR	++	++	−−	++	+	2
*General adult population*
Aloia et al. 2013	++	–	+	++	++	–	++	++	2
Aloia et al. 2018	++	+	+	NR	NR	–	++	+	2
Billington et al. 2020	++	–	+	++	+	+	++	++	2
Brohult & Jonson, 1973	+	NR	NR	NR	–	–	++	–	3
Burnett‐Bowie et al. 2012	++	+	NR	NR	NR	++	++	+	2
Diamond et al. 2013	++	NR	NR	NR	−−	NR	++	+	3
Drincic et al. 2013	++	++	–	NR	−−	+	++	+	2
Gallagher et al. 2012, ^(c)	++	++	+	++	+	+	++	++	1
Gallagher et al. 2013, ^(c)	++	+	+	+	+	+	++	+	1
Grimnes et al. 2012	++	++	+	++	+	++	++	++	1
Heaney et al. 2003	+	NR	–	NR	NR	NR	++	+	3
Hin et al. 2016	++	–	+	++	+	++	++	+	2
Johnson et al. 2022	++	+	–	+	++	++	+	+	2
Sneve et al. 2008	++	+	NR	NR	+	–	++	+	2
Mastaglia et al. 2006	+	+	NR	–	–	+	++	+	2
Ponda et al. 2012	++	NR	NR	++	+	NR	+	+	2
Rafii et al. 2019	NR	+	–	−−	−−	–	+	–	3
Rorie et al. 2014	++	+	NR	++	+	+	++	+	2
Schwartz et al. 2016	++	++	NR	NR	+	+	–	+	2
Shirvani et al. 2020	++	NR	NR	NR	+	NR	++	+	2
Vieth et al. 2001	+	+	+	++	+	–	+	+	1
Wagner et al. 2016	++	NR	+	++	++	++	++	+	2
Wamberg et al. 2013	++	+	+	++	+	+	+	+	1

^(a)

Expert judgement was translated into a rating scale for each question to be answered as follows: (++): definitely low RoB; (+): probably low RoB; (NR): not reported; (−): probably high RoB; (− −): definitively high RoB.

^(b)

The individual rating for each question was combined by an algorithm and translated to an overall tier of reliability for each individual study (RoB tier 1: low RoB; RoB tier 2: moderate RoB; RoB tier 3: high RoB).

^(c)

The publications were based on the same intervention study but represent different study populations.