SynthesisPloS one2022
Is routine Vitamin A supplementation still justified for children in Nepal? Trial synthesis findings applied to Nepal national mortality estimates.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Is Vitamin A Supplementation Campaign Still Justified? A Qualitative Study Exploring Insights From Policymakers and Programme Planners in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.Journal of nutrition and metabolism · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe World Health Organization has recommended Vitamin A supplementation for children in low- and middle-income countries for many years to reduce child mortality. Nepal still practices routine Vitamin A supplementation. We examined the potential current impact of these programs using national data in Nepal combined with an update of the mortality effect estimate from a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
methodsWe used the 2017 Cochrane review as a template for an updated meta-analysis. We conducted fresh searches, re-applied the inclusion criteria, re-extracted the data for mortality and constructed a summary of findings table using GRADE. We applied the best estimate of the effect obtained from the trials to the national statistics of the country to estimate the impact of supplementation on under-five mortality in Nepal.
resultsThe effect estimates from well-concealed trials gave a 9% reduction in mortality (Risk Ratio: 0.91, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.97, 6 trials; 1,046,829 participants; low certainty evidence). The funnel plot suggested publication bias, and a meta-analysis of trials published since 2000 gave a smaller effect estimate (Risk Ratio: 0.96, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.03, 2 trials, 1,007,587 participants), with the DEVTA trial contributing 55.1 per cent to this estimate. Applying the estimate from well-concealed trials to Nepal's under-five mortality rate, there may be a reduction in mortality, and this is small from 28 to 25 per 1000 live births; 3 fewer deaths (95% CI 1 to 4 fewer) for every 1000 children supplemented.
conclusionsVitamin A supplementation may only result in a quantitatively unimportant reduction in child mortality. Stopping blanket supplementation seems reasonable given these data.
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.