ArticleFood science & nutrition2024
A follow-up study with a double-blinded, randomized controlled vitamin D supplementation trial in patients with major depressive episode (DepFuD): A study protocol and baseline characteristics.
Article in Food science & nutrition, 2024. 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.
- Vitamin D and Vitamin BDiseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- A follow-up study with a double-blinded, randomized controlled vitamin D supplementation trial in patients with major depressive episode (DepFuD): A study protocol and baseline characteristics.Food science & nutrition · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Promising initial studies on vitamin D (VD) supplementation as an adjunct treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD) require rigorously designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We aim to investigate the effects of augmenting standard MDD treatment with VD supplementation and examine factors influencing the treatment outcome. This article describes the study design, measures, and baseline characteristics. This multicenter RCT compares the efficacy of a six-month VD intervention at 100 micrograms/day versus 10 micrograms/day (μg/day) (4000 IU (international units)/day vs. 400 IU/day) added to a standard treatment in outpatients aged 20-61 years with MDD. The primary outcome is change in the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score. Secondary outcomes are other indicators of mental health and functionality (BDI, SOC, 15-D, PSS10, LS-4, LOT-R, YSQ-S2-extended, CORE-OM, TAS-20, BRCS, TADS, SCL-90, DIAD, GAF), and circulating biomarkers. Intervention assessments are conducted at baseline, 3, and 6 months, and follow-ups at 18 months and 6 years post-baseline. The baseline sample had 319 subjects (74% women; median age 31 (inter-quartile range (IQR) 15), mean MADRS score 21.38 (SD 6.04)), with 281 assigned to the RCT. At present, the study continues as a follow-up study. DepFuD project will provide extensive information regarding the potential benefits of VD and enables to identify various biopsychosocial depression-associated risk factors.
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.