SynthesisIndian pediatrics2026
Low Dose Versus High Dose Vitamin D for Treatment of Nutritional Rickets: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Indian pediatrics, 2026. 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.
- Comparison of three different daily doses of vitamin D3 in the treatment of nutritional rickets in Indian children under age 5 years: A randomized controlled trial.European journal of clinical nutrition · 2026Article
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
contextNutritional rickets is caused by vitamin D deficiency, and/or inadequate dietary calcium, and/or phosphate intake. There is considerable variation in the therapeutic vitamin D dosing regimens for nutritional rickets, and the comparative efficacy of low-dose versus high-dose regimens is unclear.
objectivesTo determine the efficacy and safety of low-dose (≤ 300,000 IU) versus high-dose (300,000-600,000 IU) vitamin D regimens for the treatment of nutritional rickets in children. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We systematically searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, grey literature sources, and clinical trial registries till April 1, 2025 (without language restrictions), for randomized controlled trials or quasi-randomized trials in children < 18 years with nutritional rickets. A three-step approach determined the study eligibility. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Odds ratios, and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.
resultsFour studies met the inclusion criteria. The pooled mean difference in serum 25(OH)D levels at 12 weeks between the low-dose and high-dose groups was - 2.27 ng/mL (95% CI - 7.64, 3.10; P = 0.41). Radiological improvement (reduction in Thacher score from severe to mild/moderate) showed pooled OR 0.38 (95% CI 0.01, 10.20; P = 0.57). Other outcomes, including a reduction in serum parathyroid hormone and serum alkaline phosphatase levels at 12 weeks were also comparable. No serious clinical adverse events were reported.
conclusionNo statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences were found among children with nutritional rickets, receiving low-dose and high-dose vitamin D regimens.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41701309What 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.