Trial reportThe Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism2014
Impact of vitamin D3 dietary supplement matrix on clinical response.
Trial report in The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hypovitaminosis D and "small burden" uterine fibroids: Opportunity for a vitamin D supplementation.Medicine · 2016Trial
- Vitamin D: Physiology, Pharmacology and Clinical Evidence for Supplementation-A Narrative Review.Basic & clinical pharmacology & toxicology · 2026Review
- Vitamin DMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- The effects of vitamin D on acute viral respiratory infections: A rapid review.Advances in integrative medicine · 2020Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
contextAs a result of research suggesting increased health risk with low serum 25-hydroxycholecalciferol (25(OH)D), health care providers are measuring it frequently. Providers and patients are faced with treatment choices when low status is identified.
objectiveTo compare the safety and efficacy of three vitamin D3 dietary supplements with different delivery matrices. SETTING AND
designA 12-week, parallel group, single-masked, clinical trial was conducted in Seattle, Washington and Kailua Kona, Hawaii. Sixty-six healthy adults with (25(OH)D) <33 ng/mL were randomly assigned to take one of three D3 supplements, ie, a chewable tablet (TAB), an oil-emulsified drop (DROP), or an encapsulated powder (CAP) at a label-claimed dose of 10,000 IU/day. Actual D3 content was assessed by a third party and the results adjusted based on the actual D3 content administered. Mean change in 25(OH)D/mcg D3 administered; difference in the proportion of D3 insufficient participants (ie, 25(OH)D ≤30 ng/mL) reaching sufficiency (ie, 25(OH)D ≥30 ng/mL); and mean change in serum 1, 25-dihydroxycholecalciferol were measured.
resultsIn two of the three products tested, the measured vitamin D3 content varied considerably from the label-claimed dose. Differences in 25(OH)D/mcg D3 administered were significantly different between groups (P = .04; n = 55). Pairwise comparisons demonstrated DROP resulted in a greater increase than TAB (P < .05) but not than CAP. TAB was not different from CAP. The proportions reaching sufficiency were: 100% (TAB and CAP) and 80% (DROP) (P = .03 between groups; n = 55). 1, 25-Dihydroxycholecalciferol did not change significantly in any group.
conclusionsOil-emulsified vitamin D3 supplements resulted in a greater mean change in serum 25(OH)D concentration, but fewer patients reaching vitamin D sufficiency, than chewable or encapsulated supplements.
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.