Table 3.
Comparison of studies by presence of biological flaws to the study findings and methodological quality.
| Study | Biological Flaws NOT Present | Biological Flaw(s) Present | Type of Flaw | Quality Score (Max 11) | Date of Publication | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 25OHD not Assessed | Dose not Appropriate | ||||||
| Belcaro et al. | X | X | 8 | 2010 | |||
| Bertone-Johnson et al. | X | X | X (L) | 11 | 2012 | ||
| Dumville et al. | X | X | 11 | 2006 | |||
| Harris & Dawson-Hughes | X | X | X (L) | 5 | 1993 | ||
| Dean et al. | X | X | X (H) | 11 | 2011 | ||
| Khajehei et al. | X | X (I) | 9 | 2009 | |||
| Sanders et al. | X | X (SE) | 11 | 2011 | |||
| Yalamanchilli & Gallagher | X | X (I) | 11 | 2012 | |||
| Total-8 Studies with Biological Flaws | 0 | 8 | 5 | 6 | 3 | 5 | |
| Arvold et al. | X | 10 | 2009 | ||||
| Gloth et al. | X | 6.5 | 1999 | ||||
| Jorde et al. | X | 8 | 2008 | ||||
| Khoraminya et al. | X | 10 | 2013 | ||||
| Landsdowne & Provost | X | 8 | 1998 | ||||
| Veith et al. | X | 10 | 2004 | ||||
| Zhang et al. | X | 9 | 2011 | ||||
| Total—7 studies without flaws | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 2 | |
↑ = significant improvement favouring Vitamin D; Dose incorrect (I), low (L), high (H) or produces side effects (SE).