SynthesisPloS one2025
Vitamin D, acute respiratory infections, and Covid-19: The curse of small-size randomised trials. A critical review with meta-analysis of randomised trials.
Synthesis in PloS one, 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.
- Vitamin D and Health Outcomes: State-of-the-Art Review of Triangulated Evidence and Ongoing Controversies.Current nutrition reports · 2026Review
- Regulation of Renal and Extrarenal Calcitriol Synthesis and Its Clinical Implications.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Vitamin D Status and Incidence of SARS-CoV-2 Reinfections in the Borriana COVID-19 Cohort: A Population-Based Prospective Cohort Study.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRandomised trials conducted from 2006 to 2021 indicated that vitamin D supplementation (VDS) was able to prevent severe COVID-19 and acute respiratory infections (ARI). However, larger randomised trials published in 2022 did not confirm the health benefits of VDS in COVID-19 patients.
objectiveTo examine through a systematic review with meta-analysis the characteristics of randomised trials on VDS to COVID-19 patients and admission to intensive care unit (ICU), and of randomised trials on VDS for the prevention of ARI.
methodA systematic search retrieved randomised trials on VDS to COVID-19 patients and admission to ICU. Data on VDS and ARI were extracted from the meta-analysis of Jolliffe et al. 2021. Groups were formed including trials with total numbers of patients below or above the median size of all trials. The associations between VDS vs no VDS, and admission to ICU were evaluated using random-effects models from which summary odds ratios (SOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were obtained. Meta-analyses were done for all trials and for each group of trials, which allowed testing a possible effect modification of trial size. Publication bias was assessed using the Louis-Furuya-Kanaruori (LFK) index (no bias if index between -1 and +1) and the trim and fill method.
resultsNine trials on VDS for preventing admission to ICU were identified, including 50 to 548 patients. The summary odds ratio (SOR) was 0.61 (95% CI: 0.39-0.95) for all trials, 0.34 (0.13-0.93) for trials including 50 to <106 patients and 0.88 (0.62-1.24) for trials including 106 to 548 patients (interaction p = 0.04). The LFK index was -3.79, and after trim and fill, the SOR was 0.80 (0.40-1.61). The SOR for the 37 trials on VDS for ARI prevention included 25 to 16,000 patients. The SOR was 0.92 (0.86-0.99) for all trials, 0.69 (0.57-0.83) for trials including 25 to <248 patients and 0.98 (0.94-1.03) for trials including 248 to 16,000 patients (interaction p = 0.0001). The LFK index was -3.11, and after trim and fill, the SOR was 0.96 (0.88-1.05).
conclusionStrong publication bias affected small randomised trials on VDS for the prevention of severe COVID-19 and of ARI. Systematic reviews should beware of small-size randomised trials that generally exaggerate health benefits.
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.