Trial reportBMJ open2023
Safety and efficacy of Vitamin D
Trial report in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Antioxidant Food Supplementation in Cancer: Lessons from Clinical Trials and Insights from Preclinical Studies.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Emerging role of MYB transcription factors in cancer drug resistance.Cancer drug resistance (Alhambra, Calif.) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe study aimed to compare early molecular response (EMR) rates at 3 months of imatinib therapy with and without vitamin D
designDouble-blind, placebo-controlled, exploratory randomised trial.
settingTertiary care hospital in northern India.
participantsTreatment-naive patients with chronic phase chronic myeloid leukaemia (n=62) aged >12 years were recruited from January 2020 to January 2021. Patients with progressive disease, pregnancy and hypercalcaemia were excluded.
interventionOral vitamin D PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was to compare EMR (defined as
resultsAt baseline, 14.5% of the patients had normal vitamin D
conclusionVitamin D TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CTRI/2019/09/021164.
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.