In this critical appraisal of a meta-analysis on vitamin D for primary depression, we uncovered several methodological issues, including deviations from stated eligibility criteria, questionable analytical decisions, and the omission of a high-quality clinical trial in the subgroup analyses that supported their main conclusions. Our revised meta-analysis found no evidence of subgroup differences and no statistically significant effects within either subgroup. Moreover, we identified two influential outliers that overstate the effect favoring vitamin D. These findings suggest that the conclusions drawn by Wang et al. were influenced by an incorrect interpretation of a flawed analysis. Our findings suggest that vitamin D supplementation does not appear to confer a clinically meaningful benefit for reducing depressive symptoms, regardless of patients' baseline vitamin D status.