4.6 Review

The Nonskeletal Effects of Vitamin D: An Endocrine Society Scientific Statement

期刊

ENDOCRINE REVIEWS
卷 33, 期 3, 页码 456-492

出版社

ENDOCRINE SOC
DOI: 10.1210/er.2012-1000

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [DK092759, UL1RR033176, UL1TR000124, R21AR056885, RO1AI073539, T32AR059033, RO1 AR050023]
  2. Veterans Administration [DK46974]
  3. Canadian Institutes of Health Research [MOP-84253, CA13896]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Significant controversy has emerged over the last decade concerning the effects of vitamin D on skeletal and nonskeletal tissues. The demonstration that the vitamin D receptor is expressed in virtually all cells of the body and the growing body of observational data supporting a relationship of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D to chronic metabolic, cardiovascular, and neoplastic diseases have led to widespread utilization of vitamin D supplementation for the prevention and treatment of numerous disorders. In this paper, we review both the basic and clinical aspects of vitamin D in relation to nonskeletal organ systems. We begin by focusing on the molecular aspects of vitamin D, primarily by examining the structure and function of the vitamin D receptor. This is followed by a systematic review according to tissue type of the inherent biological plausibility, the strength of the observational data, and the levels of evidence that support or refute an association between vitamin D levels or supplementation and maternal/child health as well as various disease states. Although observational studies support a strong case for an association between vitamin D and musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, neoplastic, and metabolic disorders, there remains a paucity of large-scale and long-term randomized clinical trials. Thus, at this time, more studies are needed to definitively conclude that vitamin D can offer preventive and therapeutic benefits across a wide range of physiological states and chronic nonskeletal disorders. (Endocrine Reviews 33: 456-492, 2012)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据