Abstract
Using a variety of approaches, researchers have studied the health effects of solar ultraviolet (UV) radiation exposure and vitamin D. This review compares the contributions from geographical ecological studies with those of observational studies and clinical trials. Health outcomes discussed were based on the author's knowledge and include anaphylaxis/food allergy, atopic dermatitis and eczema, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism, back pain, cancer, dental caries, diabetes mellitus type 1, hypertension, inflammatory bowel disease, lupus, mononucleosis, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson disease, pneumonia, rheumatoid arthritis, and sepsis. Important interactions have taken place between study types; sometimes ecological studies were the first to report an inverse correlation between solar UVB doses and health outcomes such as for cancer, leading to both observational studies and clinical trials. In other cases, ecological studies added to the knowledge base. Many ecological studies include other important risk-modifying factors, thereby minimizing the chance of reporting the wrong link. Laboratory studies of mechanisms generally support the role of vitamin D in the outcomes discussed. Indications exist that for some outcomes, UVB effects may be independent of vitamin D. This paper discusses the concept of the ecological fallacy, noting that it applies to all epidemiological studies.