Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34310814›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of clinical practice2021

Insufficient evidence for vitamin D use in COVID-19: A rapid systematic review.

Aline Pereira da Rocha, Alvaro Nagib Atallah, José Mendes Aldrighi, Andréa Larissa Ribeiro Pires, Maria Eduarda Dos Santos Puga, Ana Carolina Pereira Nunes Pinto

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of clinical practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Impaired Vitamin D Metabolism in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Putative Role of Vitamin D for COVID-19 Vaccination.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    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

6 authors.

Aline Pereira da RochaDiscipline of Evidence-Based Health, Escola Paulista de Medicina (EPM), Universidade Federal de São Paulo (Unifesp), São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0863-6500
Alvaro Nagib AtallahDiscipline of Evidence-Based Health, Escola Paulista de Medicina (EPM), Universidade Federal de São Paulo (Unifesp), São Paulo, Brazil.
José Mendes AldrighiFaculdade de Saúde Pública, Faculdade de Ciências Médicas Santa Casa, USP, São Paulo, Brazil.
Andréa Larissa Ribeiro PiresUniversidade de Pernambuco, Universidade Federal da Paraíba (UFPB), Recife, Brazil.
Maria Eduarda Dos Santos PugaDiscipline of Evidence-Based Health, Escola Paulista de Medicina (EPM), Universidade Federal de São Paulo (Unifesp), São Paulo, Brazil.
Ana Carolina Pereira Nunes PintoDiscipline of Evidence-Based Health, Escola Paulista de Medicina (EPM), Universidade Federal de São Paulo (Unifesp), São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1505-877X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVitamin D deficiency has been linked to the increased severity of numerous viral infections.

objectiveTo assess whether vitamin D supplementation is safe and effective for the treatment of COVID-19.

methodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, LILACS and LOVE for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published up to 2 March evaluating the effects of vitamin D for the treatment of coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Two authors selected the studies and analysed the data evidence following Cochrane Recommendations.

resultsWe included three RCTs with a total of 385 participants. We found low certainty evidence indicating that hospitalised patients under calcifediol plus standard care (SC) treatment seem to present a significantly lower risk of being admitted to ICU but no difference in mortality. We found low to very low certainty evidence that the improvement in fibrinogen levels is slightly greater in mildly symptomatic or asymptomatic patients with COVID-19 that used cholecalciferol plus SC than in those treated with placebo plus SC (mean difference), and the patients who used cholecalciferol plus SC achieved more SARS-CoV-2 negativity, but not on d-dimer, c-reactive protein (CRP) or procalcitonin compared with the patients in the placebo plus SC group. We also found low to moderate certainty evidence that a single high dose of vitamin D does not seem to be effective for reducing mortality, length of hospital stay, ICU admissions and d-dimer or CRP levels when used in patients with moderate to severe COVID-19.

conclusionsAs a practical implication, the use of vitamin D associated with SC seems to provide some benefit to patients with COVID-19. However, the evidence is currently insufficient to support the routine use of vitamin D for the management of COVID-19, as its effectiveness seems to depend on the dosage, on the baseline vitamin D levels, and on the degree of COVID-19 severity.

Indexed as

COVID-19Vitamin D DeficiencyHumansSARS-CoV-2Vitamin DVitaminsVitamin DVitamins

Identifiers

PMID34310814
PMCPMC8420259

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.