Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39599582›Full record

SynthesisNutrients2024

The Effect of Vitamin D Supplementation Post COVID-19 Infection and Related Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Marina Sartini, Filippo Del Puente, Alessio Carbone, Elisa Schinca, Gianluca Ottria, Chiara Dupont, Carolina Piccinini, Martino Oliva, Maria Luisa Cristina

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Nutrients, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Too much vitamin D? a drug safety review.Reviews in endocrine & metabolic disorders · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Marina SartiniOperating Unit Hospital Hygiene, Galliera Hospital, 16128 Genoa, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-7127-2893
Filippo Del PuenteDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Galliera Hospital, 16128 Genoa, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-0080-5493
Alessio CarboneOperating Unit Hospital Hygiene, Galliera Hospital, 16128 Genoa, Italy.ORCID 0009-0008-9907-3299
Elisa SchincaOperating Unit Hospital Hygiene, Galliera Hospital, 16128 Genoa, Italy.ORCID 0009-0008-1999-8786
Gianluca OttriaOperating Unit Hospital Hygiene, Galliera Hospital, 16128 Genoa, Italy.
Chiara DupontDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Genoa, 16132 Genoa, Italy.
Carolina PiccininiDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Genoa, 16132 Genoa, Italy.
Martino OlivaOperating Unit Hospital Hygiene, Galliera Hospital, 16128 Genoa, Italy.ORCID 0009-0004-5913-9258
Maria Luisa CristinaOperating Unit Hospital Hygiene, Galliera Hospital, 16128 Genoa, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-7926-7108

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVitamin D's role in COVID-19 management remains controversial. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of vitamin D supplementation in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, focusing on mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, intubation rates, and hospital length of stay (LOS).

methodsA systematic review of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane, and Google Scholar databases was conducted. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and analytical studies investigating vitamin D supplementation in COVID-19 patients were included. The meta-analysis was performed using STATA MP 18.5, employing random-effect or fixed-effect models based on heterogeneity.

resultsTwenty-nine studies (twenty-one RCTs, eight analytical) were analyzed. Vitamin D supplementation significantly reduced ICU admissions (OR = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.79) in RCTs and analytical studies (OR = 0.35, 95% CI: 0.18 to 0.66). Intubation rates were significantly reduced in RCTs (OR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.27 to 0.92). Mortality reduction was significant in analytical studies (OR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.24 to 0.86) but not in RCTs (OR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.61 to 1.04). Subgroup analyses revealed more pronounced effects in older patients and severe COVID-19 cases. LOS showed a non-significant reduction (mean difference = -0.62 days, 95% CI: -1.41 to 0.18).

conclusionsThis meta-analysis suggests potential benefits of vitamin D supplementation in COVID-19 patients, particularly in reducing ICU admissions. However, the evidence varies across outcomes and patient subgroups. Discrepancies between RCTs and analytical studies highlight the need for further large-scale, well-designed trials accounting for baseline vitamin D status, standardized supplementation protocols, and patient characteristics to inform clinical guidelines for vitamin D use in COVID-19 management.

Indexed as

COVID-19Dietary SupplementsLength of StaySARS-CoV-2Vitamin DCOVID-19 Drug TreatmentFemaleHumansIntensive Care UnitsMaleMiddle AgedRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeVitaminsVitamin DVitaminsCOVID-19intensive care unitmortalityvitamin D

Identifiers

PMID39599582
PMCPMC11597733

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.