Trial reportNutrients2019
Pharmacokinetics of a New Pharmaceutical Form of Vitamin D3 100,000 IU in Soft Capsule.
Trial report in Nutrients, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of Vitamin DNutrients · 2020Pooled it
- Trial
- Ultra-Marathon-Induced Increase in Serum Levels of Vitamin D Metabolites: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial.Nutrients · 2020Trial
- A comparative absorption study of sucrosomialFrontiers in nutrition · 2023Article
- Vitamin D levels of the healthy infants using oral spray or drop form of vitamin D supplement in the first year of life.Northern clinics of Istanbul · 2021Article
- Simulation of Physicochemical and Pharmacokinetic Properties of Vitamin DPharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Electrochemical Oxidation as a Tool for Generating Vitamin D Metabolites.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
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
Vitamin D deficiency is frequent in the general population and both subjects and health professionals could benefit from a broader range of vitamin D3 formulations. We conducted a single-dose, open-label, parallel-group, randomized bioequivalence study to compare a single dose of a newly developed vitamin D3 100,000 IU in a soft capsule (Group 1) with the reference drug vitamin D3 100,000 IU oral solution in ampoule (Group 2) in healthy volunteers over a four-month period. The primary endpoint was the area under the curve (AUC) of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin-D (25(OH)D) concentrations on Day 112. This study was conducted in France from February to June 2014 in 53 young adults with a mean age of 26.9 years. At baseline, low mean serum 25(OH)D levels were observed in both groups (10.6 ng/mL in Group 1 and 9.0 ng/mL in Group 2). On Day 112, the AUC of serum 25(OH)D concentration was 2499.4 ± 463.8 nmol/mL (7.8 ± 0.2 for LogAUC) for Group 1 and 2152.3 ± 479.8 nmol/mL (7.6 ± 0.2 for LogAUC) for Group 2. Bioequivalence of the two treatments was not demonstrated. Superiority of vitamin D3 100,000 IU soft capsule was observed with
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.