ArticleDrugs & aging2018
Efficacy of a Standardized Oral Vitamin D Dosing Regimen in Nursing Home Residents.
Article in Drugs & aging, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Vitamin D deficiency in nursing home residents: a systematic review.Nutrition reviews · 2023Pooled it
- The effect of standard-dose wintertime vitamin D supplementation on influenza infection in immunized nursing home elderly residents.Croatian medical journal · 2021Trial
- Effectiveness of a vitamin D regimen in deficient multiple myeloma patients and its effect on peripheral neuropathy.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2023Article
- The application of standardized nursing assessment and intervention in reducing the incidence of unplanned extubation of gastric tube.American journal of translational research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in nursing home residents ranges from 79% to 98%.
objectivesThe aim of this cross-sectional observational study in somatic and psychogeriatric nursing home residents was to determine the efficacy of a standardized oral vitamin D dosing regimen (VDDR) consisting of a loading dose (LD) of cholecalciferol 200,000 IU followed by a maintenance dose (MD) of 100,000 IU every 13 weeks in obtaining and maintaining an adequate and safe vitamin D trough level (VDTL), defined as 75-220 nmol/L (reference range).
methodsBlood samples of nursing home residents who had received the LD followed by at least one MD were analyzed for VDTL, calcium, parathyroid hormone, and creatinine. Data on age, sex, race, body weight and height, co-morbidity, co-medication, number of MDs, calcium supplementation, smoking, and use of alcohol were obtained from patient charts. The primary outcome for the efficacy of the VDDR was the percentage of nursing home residents with a VDTL 75-220 nmol/L, with a target percentage of 85% for the dosing regimen to be considered efficacious.
resultsIn 91 (58%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 50-66) of 156 included nursing home residents, a VDTL within the reference range was measured (mean [standard deviation] 81 [28] nmol/L, range 13-150 nmol/L). The only variable that was identified as a significant risk indicator for obtaining a VDTL ≥ 75 nmol/L was the number of MDs being four or more (≥ 4 vs. < 4; odds ratio 2.7; 95% CI 1.4-5.3).
conclusionThis standardized VDDR was not efficacious in obtaining and maintaining an adequate VDTL in this nursing home resident population. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR6029 (The Netherlands National Trial Register).
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.