ReviewCureus2025
Efficacy of Vitamin D Supplementation in Accelerating Sputum Conversion of Bacteriologically Diagnosed Tuberculosis Patients: A Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2025. 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.
- Potential value of vitamin D as adjunctive therapy in osteoarticular tuberculosis: a comprehensive review.Infection · 2026Review
- Beyond VDR: Vitamin D Metabolism Genes in Tuberculosis Susceptibility, Immune Response and Implications for Diabetes Mellitus.Infection and drug resistance · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Tuberculosis (TB) is a global pandemic disease whose first-line treatment is with a combination of four antimicrobials commonly abbreviated as HRZE (isoniazid, rifampin, pyrazinamide, and ethambutol). However, some consider the regimen inadequate, thus conducting numerous trials to search for adjunctive therapies, including vitamin D supplementation. Trials so far have led to mixed results. The present study aims to consolidate data on the effects of vitamin D supplementation on clinical outcomes, specifically rates of sputum culture conversion. PubMed databases were searched for peer-reviewed articles published in English between the years 2013 and 2023 that deal with human subjects, designed as randomized controlled trials (RCTs), utilizing vitamin D supplementation in addition to anti-TB therapy, with a measured outcome of the rate of sputum culture conversion at specific follow-up intervals. The risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. Initially, 1,225 articles were found via database search, narrowed to six articles after screening and full-text reading. A significant difference was found between the vitamin D and control/placebo groups in rates of sputum culture conversion at eight weeks, with the intervention group having an increased odds of culture conversion by 1.63 (95% CI 1.13, 2.35, p < 0.01). The same was not found, however, at 16 weeks (OR = 0.99, 95% CI 0.71, 1.38, p > 0.05). Statistical heterogeneity was minimal, but the studies significantly differed in the dosing regimens of the intervention, populations included, and attrition rates. The RoB was also low, but there were concerns due to high attrition rates, lack of blinding, and the addition of unplanned post-hoc analysis. The beneficial effects of vitamin D supplementation, if any, involve eliciting an early response to treatment, reflected in improved culture conversion rates at earlier follow-up intervals. Possible factors mentioned in some studies that may lead to variations in the effect of vitamin D supplementation include vitamin D status (sufficiency/insufficiency/deficiency), presence of drug resistance, and genetic polymorphisms; these may be explored in future studies sufficiently powered to examine such a relationship.
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.