ReviewNutrients2019
Lessons Learned from the Testing of Neonatal Vitamin A Supplementation.
Review in Nutrients, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Metabolism of Neonatal Vitamin A Supplementation: A Systematic Review.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2021Pooled it
- Review
- Measles Vaccination in Presence of Measles Antibody May Enhance Child Survival.Frontiers in pediatrics · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
A total of 12 trials have tested the effect of neonatal vitamin A supplementation (NVAS) on mortality. Overall, NVAS had no effect on mortality, but results were heterogeneous. Two competing hypotheses have been put forward to explain the divergent effects: A) NVAS works by preventing vitamin A deficiency (VAD) and not all countries have VAD; B) NVAS interacts negatively with subsequent diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP) vaccine, increasing mortality in females; in countries with low DTP coverage NVAS may have a beneficial effect. Only hypothesis A was tested in a recent meta-analysis; there is no strong empirical support for hypothesis A and it would not explain observed negative effects in some settings. Hypothesis B accounts for most observations. However, so far it has only been tested properly in a few trials. If hypothesis B is correct, it has major consequences for the understanding of the effects of vitamin A, and for the VAS policy in older children. As a WHO priority, the DTP coverage is bound to increase, and therefore hypothesis B urgently needs to be tested.
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.