Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30624670›Full record

Trial reportThe American journal of clinical nutrition2019

Randomized controlled trial of vitamin D supplementation in older people to optimize bone health.

Terry J Aspray, Thomas Chadwick, Roger M Francis, Elaine McColl, Elaine Stamp, Ann Prentice, Alexander von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Inez Schoenmakers

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The American journal of clinical nutrition, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Terry J AsprayNIHR Newcastle Biomedical Research Center, Campus for Aging and Vitality, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Thomas ChadwickInstitute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Roger M FrancisInstitute for Cellular Medicine, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Elaine McCollInstitute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Elaine StampInstitute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Ann PrenticeMRC Elsie Widdowson Laboratory, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Alexander von Wilamowitz-MoellendorffInstitute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Inez SchoenmakersMRC Elsie Widdowson Laboratory, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Funding

Arthritis Research UK 19544Medical Research Council MC_U105960371Medical Research Council U105960371Versus Arthritis 19544
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Vitamin D insufficiency is common in older people and may lead to increased bone resorption, bone loss, and increased falls and fractures. However, clinical trials assessing the effect of vitamin D supplementation on bone mineral density (BMD) have yielded conflicting results. Objectives: This study examined the effect of vitamin D supplementation on BMD at the hip, using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Methods: A total of 379 adults aged ≥70 y (48% women; mean age: 75 y) from the northeast of England were randomly allocated to 1 of 3 doses of vitamin D3 [12,000 international units (IU), 24,000 IU, or 48,000 IU] given once a month. The primary outcome was change in BMD (ΔBMD) at the hip. Secondary endpoints comprised the dose effects on femoral neck BMD, falls, circulating calciotropic hormones, bone turnover markers, and adverse events. Results: The mean ± SD baseline plasma 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] concentration was 40.0 ± 20.1 nmol/L, which increased after 12 mo to a mean 25(OH)D of 55.9, 64.6, or 79.0 nmol/L for participants receiving a monthly dose of 12,000, 24,000, or 48,000 IU, respectively (P < 0.01 for difference). There was no between-group difference in ΔBMD. However, parathyroid hormone concentrations decreased in all 3 groups, with a significantly greater decrease in the 48,000-IU group compared with the 12,000-IU group (P < 0.01). There were no differences in any adverse events between groups, with 3 cases of hypercalcemia, none of nephrolithiasis, and 249 falls observed. Conclusions: There was no difference in change in BMD over 12 mo between the 3 doses of vitamin D, suggesting no effect of the intervention or a similar attenuation of the anticipated decrease in BMD over 12 mo. The treatment was safe and effective in increasing plasma 25(OH)D concentrations, with no dose-related adverse events. This trial was registered at the EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT 2011-004890-10) and the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN35648481).

Indexed as

Absorptiometry, PhotonAccidental FallsAgedAged, 80 and overBone DensityBone RemodelingCholecalciferolDietary SupplementsEnglandFemaleFemur NeckHumansMaleParathyroid HormonePelvic BonesVitamin D25-hydroxyvitamin DCholecalciferolParathyroid HormoneVitamin D

Identifiers

PMID30624670
PMCPMC6358029

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.