ArticleBMC nutrition2025
Effects of vitamin D3 supplementation on the recovery of hospitalized burn patients: a randomized double-blind controlled trial.
Article in BMC nutrition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prehabilitation in Obese Patients with Ventral Hernia: A Narrative Review and Proposal of a Clinical Algorithm.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Vitamin D Deficiency and Clinical Outcomes in Adult Burn Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cureus · 2025Review
- Serum Vitamin D Levels and Its Relationship With Keloid, Acne or Hypertrophic Scar: A Two-Sample Mendelian Randomization Study.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBurn patients, due to their damaged skin, may not be able to synthesize vitamin D. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effects of vitamin D supplementation on the recovery of hospitalized burn patients.
methodsFifty-four patients participated in a randomized controlled trial. Eighteen patients were randomly assigned to group C (control, received gelatin soft gel as placebo), 18 patients to group D
resultsThere were no significant differences in the serum vitamin D levels between the groups at admission (P = 0.52), and 81.5% of the participants were deficient, with a noteworthy increase during study in supplemented groups (P < 0.001). The Bates-Jensen Wound Assessment Tool demonstrated significant differences in wound healing between the C group and the D
conclusionSupplementation with vitamin D at doses of 1000 and 3000 IU/day improved wound healing and decreased scar thickness as well as exogenous insulin requirements. Overall, at 3000 IU/day, better results were achieved than at 1000 IU/day.
trial registrationThis article is registered in 24/04/2020 on the Iranian Randomized Clinical Trials Registry (trial registration number (IRCT, code: IRCT20200420047141N1.
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.