English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

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, body mass index, 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.

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