4.7 Article

Efficacy of Vitamin D Supplements in Treatment of Acute Respiratory Infection: A Meta-analysis for Randomized Controlled Trials

Journal

NUTRIENTS
Volume 14, Issue 6, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu14061144

Keywords

vitamin D supplements; acute respiratory infections; randomized-controlled trial; meta-analysis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to investigate the efficacy of vitamin D supplementation in the treatment of acute respiratory infections (ARIs). The analysis revealed that vitamin D supplements were not clinically effective in the treatment of ARIs. While the overall analysis showed a beneficial effect of vitamin D supplementation, this effect was not significant in the subgroup analysis of high-quality RCTs. Therefore, the role of vitamin D supplementation in the treatment of ARIs remains controversial.
Background: Recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have reported inconsistent findings regarding the efficacy of vitamin D supplementation in the treatment of acute respiratory infections (ARIs). This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of vitamin D supplementation in the treatment of ARIs using a meta-analysis of RCTs. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched for relevant articles in June 2021. Two of the authors independently assessed the eligibility of the trials. Results: Out of 390 articles retrieved from the databases, we included 18 RCTs, which involved 3648 participants, with 1838 in an intervention group and 1810 in a control group in the final analysis. In the meta-analysis of all the trials, vitamin D supplements had a beneficial effect in the treatment of ARIs (relative risk (RR) = 1.07; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.01-1.13; I-2 = 66.9%). Publication bias was observed in the funnel plot. In the subgroup meta-analysis of high-quality RCTs, no significant efficacy of vitamin D supplements was found (RR = 1.02; 95% CI, 0.98-1.06; I-2 = 24.0%). Although statistically significant changes of 7% in the treatment effects were observed, they are not considered as clinically substantial ones. Conclusions: The current meta-analysis suggests that vitamin D supplements are not clinically effective in the treatment of ARIs.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available