ReviewNutrients2024
Vitamin D Supplementation in Critically Ill-Narrative Review.
Review in Nutrients, 2024. 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.
- Association between vitamin D deficiency and clinical outcomes in critically ill patients: A retrospective cohort study.The Journal of international medical research · 2026Article
- Two-phase linear relationship of Vitamin D and Vitamin A among children aged 0-14 years: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in nutrition · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStudies have shown a high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in critically ill patients, and these patients are at higher risk for pneumonia and have increased incidence of sepsis and mortality. In this study, we reviewed available literature from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on vitamin D supplementation in critically ill patients and summarized the evidence in this narrative review.
methodsRandomized controlled trials that included vitamin D supplementation as an intervention were eligible for inclusion. No limits were set regarding vitamin D dosage or route of administration, as well as for primary and secondary outcomes. A search was conducted in MEDLINE via PubMed for eligible RCTs. References from systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) were screened, and Clinicaltrials.gov was searched for ongoing studies.
resultsA total of 21 RCTs involving 3166 patients were analyzed. There was a large heterogeneity in terms of patients' characteristics and inclusion criteria. Only six studies included patients with vitamin D levels < 50 nmol/L. Regarding clinically important outcomes, most of the studies did not show differences between the intervention and control group in terms of mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) or hospital length of stay (LoS).
conclusionsThere is great variability in trial designs regarding the selection of patients, dosage, dosing intervals and routes of administration of vitamin D supplements. Better study designs are mandatory for future clinical research, with measuring and reporting basal vitamin D levels before randomization. Since variability in supplementation regimes limits the possibility of data synthesis, standardized protocols for vitamin D supplementation should be used in clinical trial settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.