ArticleScientific reports2024
The effect of novel vitamin D3 compounds on saliva samples from COVID-19 patients: a lab study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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.
- Vitamin DFrontiers in oral health · 2026Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Vitamin D has shown antimicrobial effects. This study aimed to explore the antiviral effects of vitamin D3 on saliva samples collected from patients with coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) and compare saliva and swab results to aid in policy development. Saliva and swab samples were collected from adult patients with a positive test for COVID-19 at the King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre, Jeddah. Patients who were immunocompromised and pregnant and aged < 18 years were excluded. Vitamin D3 compound (100, 300, 800, and 1,200 IU) was added to the first saliva sample in the laboratory (n = 20); the rest of the swab specimens were compared with the saliva samples via real-time polymerase chain reaction. Of the 257 patients, 236 (94.8%) had positive saliva sample test results, 7 (2.8%) had errors, and 6 (2.4%) had negative results. Of the 236 positive tests, 235 (99.6%) had a cycle threshold (Ct) indicating strong positive reactions, and only one (Ct = 28.86) was weak. Among the 236 positive results, 235 (99.6%) exhibited robust positive reactions, indicating a substantial positive sample size. Thus, saliva might be a dependable alternative testing tool when obtaining swab samples from patients is inconvenient or challenging.
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.