Skip to content
EvidenceBased
SavedSign in
Skip to content
EvidenceBased
home / studies / PMID 39452471
← Back to study catalog

The Impact of Vitamin D on Androgens and Anabolic Steroids among Adult Males: A Meta-Analytic Review.

Author information is not available in this record · peer-reviewed

Read on PubMed →

Study context, unresolved fields and interpretation limits

What this paper studied

  • Structured record only — no verified extractable findings
  • Not evaluated; pending review. No finding has been extracted and verified for this record.
  • Source status is not human clinical review.

This paper has no verified extractable findings. Only the structured record fields below are held; the remaining study fields are marked not available rather than inferred.

What the paper set out to compare
Not available in this record
Who was studied
adult men
How it was designed
meta-analysis
Studied intervention
varies across trials
Compared against
Not available in this record
What was measured, and when
Not available in this record
What the authors reported
Not available in this record

Fields marked not available are absent from this record; they have not been inferred from the title, the journal or any other bibliographic field.

Limitations and interpretation bounds

  • Recorded risk of bias: moderate.

Source-linked brief with study context, limitations and exact record versions.

The Impact of Vitamin D on Androgens and Anabolic Steroids among Adult Males: A Meta-Analytic Review.

Substrate paper brief · PMID 39452471

Study publication year: Not available in this record. Retrieved: 2026-10-20T23:50:59.583Z.

https://evidencebased.info/studies/39452471
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39452471/

This is a dated public record snapshot. Check the canonical study page for later publication, withdrawal or review changes. It is not a recommendation or human clinical review.

What this paper studied

This paper has no verified extractable findings. Only the structured record fields below are held; the remaining study fields are marked not available rather than inferred.

  • Not evaluated; pending review. No finding has been extracted and verified for this record.
  • Source status is not human clinical review.
What the paper set out to compare
Not available in this record
Who was studied
adult men
How it was designed
meta-analysis
Studied intervention
varies across trials
Compared against
Not available in this record
What was measured, and when
Not available in this record
What the authors reported
Not available in this record

Fields marked not available are absent from this record; they have not been inferred from the title, the journal or any other bibliographic field.

No current verified extracted finding is available for this brief. Finding, paper and source version identifiers are not available here.

Study limitations and interpretation bounds

  • Recorded risk of bias: moderate.
Finding destinations and coverage · 0 records

Finding coverage

Finding destinations and coverage

No public finding destinations are listed for this record. Bibliographic metadata does not establish a finding, result or applicability.

Additional extraction and platform record details

These additional records are separate from the source-reported findings above. Platform estimates and grades are not results reported by this paper.

Study design and participants

From EvidenceBased's structured claim record, not the source extraction above.

Design
meta-analysis
Sample size
10
Population
adult men
Intervention and protocol
varies across trials

Results

  • Vitamin D → testosterone / hormone levels: positive; effect size not reported.

Limitations, bias, and funding

Risk of bias: moderate

Funding: not reported

  • Recorded risk of bias: moderate.

Role in the wider evidence

Existing platform assessment: grades and certainty are EvidenceBased's own engine output for the wider claim, not results this paper reported.