SynthesisNutrients2022
Efficacy of Vitamin D Supplements in Treatment of Acute Respiratory Infection: A Meta-Analysis for Randomized Controlled Trials.
Synthesis in Nutrients, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Vitamin D: A Nutraceutical Supplement at the Crossroad Between Respiratory Infections and COVID-19.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Silicosis: from pathogenesis to therapeutics.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Review
- Distinguishing science from pseudoscience in commercial respiratory interventions: an evidence-based guide for health and exercise professionals.European journal of applied physiology · 2023Review
- Vitamin D supplementation and immune-related markers: an update from nutrigenetic and nutrigenomic studies.The British journal of nutrition · 2022Review
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have reported inconsistent findings regarding the efficacy of vitamin D supplementation in the treatment of acute respiratory infections (ARIs). This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of vitamin D supplementation in the treatment of ARIs using a meta-analysis of RCTs.
methodsPubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched for relevant articles in June 2021. Two of the authors independently assessed the eligibility of the trials.
resultsOut of 390 articles retrieved from the databases, we included 18 RCTs, which involved 3648 participants, with 1838 in an intervention group and 1810 in a control group in the final analysis. In the meta-analysis of all the trials, vitamin D supplements had a beneficial effect in the treatment of ARIs (relative risk (RR) = 1.07; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.01-1.13; I
conclusionsThe current meta-analysis suggests that vitamin D supplements are not clinically effective in the treatment of ARIs.
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.