In Figure five. A total of 3 meta-analyses CECR2 web reported the association in between dietary vitamin D intake and RC threat. We identified a significant and inverse association when thinking of each of the subjects (0.67 (0.51; 0.87)) or females alone (0.57 (0.39; 0.82); Figure S3A,C, respectively), whereas we reported a non-significant association in men alone (1.03 (0.72; 1.47); Figure S3B). Distinct associations in between both supplemental and total vitamin D and RC in girls reported non-significant benefits (Figure 5A).Cancers 2021, 13,11 ofFigure 5. Super plot of (A) case-control and (B) potential cohort research assessing the association between vitamin D intake (highest versus lowest categories) and also the threat of rectal cancer.Within a continuous scale, La Vecchia et al. 1997  reported a non-significant association amongst dietary vitamin D intake and RC in all subjects (1.03 (0.9; 1.two)). 3.3. Meta-Analyses of Potential Cohort Studies three.3.1. Colorectal Cancer Figure 2B summarized eight meta-analyses and a single independent evaluation for the association between dietary intake, supplemental and total vitamin D with CRC incidence in all subjects, and guys or girls separately. The principle outcome referred to dietary vitamin D intake in all subjects, and we did not find a substantial association (0.94 (0.79; 1.11); Figure 3B). Moreover, we neither reported a substantial association among dietary vitamin D and CRC in males nor in females alone when comparing intense categories of dietary vitamin D intake (Figure S1C,D, respectively). Inside the case of supplemental vitamin D, we reported a substantial inverse association with CRC incidence in all subjects (0.80 (0.66; 0.96); Figure S1E) as well as the exclusive study reporting associations in men (0.65 (0.50; 0.85)), whereas we showed a non-significant association for females (Figure S1F). Finally, this inverse association was also observed when evaluating total vitamin D, toward a 20 and 29 protection in case of all subjects (0.80 (0.67; 0.95)) and males (0.71 (0.57; 0.90)), respectively (Figure S1G,H). Nevertheless, no substantial association was reported inside the meta-analysis carried out in females (0.96 (0.81; 1.15); Figure S1I).Cancers 2021, 13,12 of3.3.2. Colon Cancer Figure 4B shows the super plot of six individual analyses and one meta-analysis for the prospective association involving vitamin D intake and CC incidence. The only study carried out assessing the association involving dietary vitamin D and CC in all subjects Bax Purity & Documentation didn’t show a significant connection (1.18 (0.40; 3.47)). This non-significant association was also showed in men and women analyzed separately (Figure S2F). The analyses assessing the association between either supplemented or total vitamin D in males or women analyzed separately didn’t show substantial outcomes. In a continuous scale, Mart ez et al. 1996 reported , in ladies only, a nonsignificant inverse association for both dietary and total vitamin D intake with CC risk (0.96 (0.72; 1.28) and 0.81 (0.63; 1.05), respectively). 3.three.3. Rectal Cancer Only dietary vitamin D intake and also the threat of RC has been evaluated in all subjects, and guys or women only. On the other hand, in all of them non-significant associations have been reported when comparing extreme categories of intake. Within a continuous scale, Mart ez et al. 1996 reported , in women only, a important association involving dietary vitamin D intake and CC danger (0.45 (0.25; 0.83)), along with a nonsignificant association when total vitamin D was evaluated (1.16 (0.73; 1.82)). 3.4.