Trial reportClinical rheumatology2010
Patient preference and acceptability of calcium plus vitamin D3 supplementation: a randomised, open, cross-over trial.
Trial report in Clinical rheumatology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- What is the impact of daily oral supplementation of vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) plus calcium on the incidence of hip fracture in older people? A systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of older people nursing · 2023Pooled it
- Vitamin D supplementation for prevention of mortality in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014Pooled it
- A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Study of Jianyao Migu Granules in the Treatment of Osteopenic Low Back Pain.Journal of pain research · 2022Trial
- Effect of calcium and vitamin D supplementation on recurrence of benign paroxysmal positional vertigo in osteoporotic patients.American journal of translational research · 2026Article
- Current situation of shared decision making in osteoporosis: A comprehensive literature review of patient decision aids and decision drivers.Health science reports · 2022Article
- Hypocalcaemia in patients with prostate cancer treated with a bisphosphonate or denosumab: prevention supports treatment completion.BMC urology · 2018Review
- A Review of Patient Preferences for Osteoporosis Drug Treatment.Current rheumatology reports · 2015Review
- Formulation approaches to pediatric oral drug delivery: benefits and limitations of current platforms.Expert opinion on drug delivery · 2015Review
- Review
- Calcium and vitamin D supplementation: state of the art for daily practice.Food & nutrition research · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
unlabelledPreference for a drug formulation is important in adherence to long-term medication for chronic illnesses such as osteoporosis. We investigated the preference for and acceptability of chewable tablet containing calcium and vitamin D (Calci Chew D(3), Nycomed) compared to that of a sachet containing calcium and vitamin D(3) (Cad, Will-Pharma). This open, randomised, cross-over trial was set up to compare the preference and acceptability of two calcium plus vitamin D(3) formulations (both with 500 mg calcium and 400/440 IU vitamin D3), given twice a day in patients with osteoporosis. Preference and acceptability were assessed by means of questionnaires. Preference was determined by asking the question, which treatment the patient preferred, and acceptability was measured by scoring five variables, using rating scales. Of the 102 patients indicating a preference for a trial medication, 67% preferred the chewable tablet, 19% the sachet with calcium and vitamin D(3,) and 15% stated no preference. The significant preference for Calci Chew D(3) (p < 0.0001) was associated with higher scores for all five acceptability variables. The two formulations were tolerated equally well. A significant greater number of patients considered the chewable tablet as preferable and acceptable to the sachet, containing calcium and vitamin D(3).
trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN18822358.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.