Review

Pitfalls with Vitamin D Research in Musculoskeletal Disorders and Recommendations on How to Avoid Them

10.4274/jcrpe.galenos.2019.2019.0007

  • Gary M. Kiebzak
  • Kevin M. Neal
  • Pooya Hossienzadeh
  • Robert C. Olney
  • Michael A. Levine

Received Date: 07.01.2019 Accepted Date: 08.02.2019 J Clin Res Pediatr Endocrinol 0;0(0):0-0 [e-Pub] PMID: 30759962

Reports suggesting that vitamin D may have extraskeletal roles have renewed interest in vitamin D research and stimulated publication of an increasing number of new studies each year. These studies typically assess vitamin D status by measuring the blood concentration of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D), the principal circulating metabolite of vitamin D. Unfortunately, variations in assay format, inconsistency in interpreting 25(OH)D concentrations, cohort bias (age, BMI, race, season of measurements etc.) and failure to measure critical variables needed to interpret study results, makes interpreting results and comparing studies difficult. Further, variation in reporting results (reporting mean values vs. percent of the cohort that is deficient, no clear statement as to clinical relevance of effect size, etc.) further limits interstudy analyses. In this paper, we discuss many common pitfalls in vitamin D research. We also provide recommendations on avoiding these pitfalls and suggest guidelines to enhance consistency in reporting results.

Keywords: Vitamin D, 25-hydroxyvitamin D, deficiency