SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Effect of vitamin D supplementation on clinical outcomes of patients with Parkinson disease: A randomized controlled study.

Medicine (Baltimore) · 2026-07-01

DOI: 10.1097/md.0000000000049931PMID: 42499083

Open accessresearch-article; Randomized Controlled Trial; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

BackgroundVitamin D deficiency is linked to Parkinson disease (PD) pathogenesis; however, clinical trial results remain inconclusive. Thus, in this study, we aimed to evaluate the prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in Thai patients with PD and the efficacy of vitamin D3 supplementation on clinical outcomes in a tropical, sun-abundant region.MethodsIn this randomized controlled trial, we enrolled 60 patients with PD and 60 healthy controls. Patients with PD were randomized 1:1 to receive 2000 IU/d of vitamin D3 or no additional treatment (control) for 12 weeks. Primary outcomes included changes in MDS-UPDRS, Hoehn and Yahr (mH&Y), Thai Mini-Mental State Examination, and PDQ-39 scores. The secondary outcome was the prevalence of vitamin D deficiency (25(OH)D ResultsAt baseline, vitamin D deficiency was significantly more prevalent in patients with PD than in healthy controls (23.2% vs 10.0%, P = .046). After 12 weeks, the vitamin D group showed a significant increase in serum 25(OH)D levels compared to the control group (P ConclusionVitamin D deficiency is common among Thai patients with PD, despite equatorial proximity. While 2000 IU/d of vitamin D3 safely corrected nutritional deficiency, it provided no significant short-term motor or cognitive benefits.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.