SynthesisBMC infectious diseases2026
Efficacy and safety of vitamin D supplementation in treating pulmonary tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC infectious diseases, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study endeavors to assess the efficacy and safety of vitamin D (VD) supplementation among pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) adults receiving standard anti-tuberculosis (TB) therapy.
methodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies evaluating VD supplementation as an adjunct to standard therapy in patients with drug-susceptible TB were included. Eligible studies compared clinical outcomes between patients receiving VD supplementation regardless of formulation or route of administration (RoA) and those receiving standard therapy alone. The number of included studies and participants varied across outcomes. Data on study design, participant characteristics, VD regimens, and outcome measures were systematically extracted. Risk ratio (RR) was calculated for dichotomous outcomes, and standardized mean difference (SMD) was used for continuous outcomes. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic. Publication bias was evaluated using funnel plots and Egger’s test. Sensitivity analyses and predefined subgroup analyses (e.g., by treatment duration and RoA) were performed. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE framework.
resultsAdjunctive VD supplementation significantly increased the sputum smear conversion (SSC) rate (RR: 1.12; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.05–1.19; P = 0.0001; high GRADE certainty; I²=46%, P = 0.06) and reduced mean TB severity scores (SMD: -1.20; 95% CI: -2.18 to -0.21; P = 0.02; low GRADE certainty; I²=96%, P < 0.0001). No significant effect was observed on sputum culture conversion (SCC) (RR: 1.08; 95% CI: 0.95–1.22; P = 0.25; low GRADE certainty; I²=67%, P = 0.05). VD supplementation was related to a significant reduction in adverse events (AEs) (RR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.40–0.74; P = 0.0001; high GRADE certainty; I²=0%, P = 0.43) and an increase in serum calcium levels (SMD: 0.31; 95% CI: 0.14–0.49; P = 0.0006; high GRADE certainty; I²=26%, P = 0.25). Subgroup analyses indicated that treatment durations of ≥ 12 weeks and injectable RoAs were related to more consistent benefits for SSC. Substantial heterogeneity was observed across several outcomes. Additional findings included significant increases in serum VD and hemoglobin (Hgb) levels, whereas no significant effects were detected for white blood cell (WBC) count, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), or C-reactive protein (CRP).
conclusionsAdjunctive VD supplementation in the treatment of drug-susceptible TB is related to improved SSC and a favorable safety profile, including a reduction in AEs. These findings support the use of VD as an adjunctive therapy, particularly among VD-deficient patients. However, evidence for other clinical outcomes remains inconclusive due to substantial heterogeneity and lower certainty of evidence. Further well-designed, adequately powered, and standardized randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are warranted to determine optimal dosing strategies, RoAs, and treatment durations, and to strengthen the overall evidence base. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.