CONTEXT: The growing number of systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SR/MAs) on vitamin D (± calcium) for fracture prevention has led to contradictory guidelines. OBJECTIVE: This umbrella review aims to assess the quality and explore the reasons for the discrepancy of SR/MAs of trials on vitamin D supplementation for fracture risk reduction in adults. METHODS: We searched 4 databases (2010-2020), Epistemonikos, and references of included SRs/MAs, and we contacted experts in the field. We used A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2) for quality assessment. We compared results and investigated reasons for discordance using matrices and subgroup analyses (PROSPERO registration: CRD42019129540). We included 13 SR/MAs on vitamin D and calcium (Ca/D) and 19 SR/MAs on vitamin D alone, compared to placebo/control. RESULTS: Only 2 from 10 SRs/MAs on Ca/D were of moderate quality. Ca/D reduced the risk of hip fractures in 8 of 12 SRs/MAs (relative risk [RR] 0.61-0.84), and any fractures in 7 of 11 SR/MAs (RR 0.74-0.95). No fracture risk reduction was noted in SRs/MAs exclusively evaluating community-dwelling individuals or in those on vitamin D alone compared to placebo/control. Discordance in results between SRs/MAs stems from inclusion of different trials, related to search periods and eligibility criteria, and varying methodology (using intention to treat, per-protocol, or complete case analysis from individual trials). CONCLUSION: Ca/D reduces the risk of hip and any fractures, possibly driven by findings from institutionalized individuals. Individual participant data meta-analyses of patients on Ca/D with sufficient follow-up periods, and subgroup analyses, would unravel determinants for a beneficial response to supplementation.