Are you getting enough vitamin D?

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

There was no discussion about the costs of supplements, whether the costs of the "D3" and "D2" differ, or how the costs of supplemented versions of foods compared with the unsupplemented version.

Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Satisfactory

The reporter told viewers that there was consensus that vitamin D makes a difference in the immune system.  He also mentioned that there are studies that suggest that higher vitamin D intake is associated with lower risk for some cancers.  There was, however, no attempt made in this piece to quantify these benefits.

Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

The reporter stated that by "taking huge mega-doses, you can get into big trouble".  He could have easily provided more explicit information about tolerable upper limits of vitamin D, and doses associated with toxicity.  He did mention that too much vitamin D could result in problems with your bones and your kidneys.  However – there was no specific information about the types of harms.  Are they reversible (i.e. if you stop taking vitamin D do they resolve)?  How common are these harms?  Are there populations who are at greater risks of developing such problems?   If a person is taking vitamin D supplements, are there ways to monitor for "big trouble"? 

Although exposure to skin to sunlight without application of sunscreen was discussed as a means of obtaining vitamin D, there was no discussion of the risks associated with exposure.

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Not Satisfactory

The physican-reporter told viewers that most experts he knows recommend higher vitamin D intakes than are currently recommended by the National Academy of Science. But that is a non-evidence-based commentary.  

In addition, the evidence regarding cancer risk is not fully understood, and no attempt to quantify this risk was made other than to say it comes from suggestive studies which are not the 'gold standard'.  This might have been used as an opportunity to explain to viewers that not all evidence has the same value.

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?

Not Satisfactory

The only acknowledged source of information for this story was the National Academy of Sciences.  However the conversation was about the view that these recommendations are inadequate and that people should be consuming more vitamin D.

There was no information about the source of the data demonstrating that more vitamin D is desirable.  Although the reporter said that most of the experts he knows recommend more, this is inadequate to educate the viewer about why more is needed.

This was one of the major drawbacks of the report.  More details could have at least been provided on the network's website.