COVID-19 and vitamin D (Co-VIVID study): a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
No abstract available
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.08.22.21262216: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization Data extraction and risk of bias assessment: The information extracted from eligible RCTs include: first author names, study country and setting, sample sizes, randomization, blinding, vitamin D form and dose, follow-up details, number of events for study outcomes (severity, ICU care, mortality, seropositivity and RT-PCR positivity) in treatment and comparator groups, and other study characteristics. Blinding Data extraction and risk of bias assessment: The information extracted from eligible RCTs include: first author names, study country and setting, sample sizes, randomization, blinding, vitamin D form and dose, follow-up … SciScore for 10.1101/2021.08.22.21262216: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization Data extraction and risk of bias assessment: The information extracted from eligible RCTs include: first author names, study country and setting, sample sizes, randomization, blinding, vitamin D form and dose, follow-up details, number of events for study outcomes (severity, ICU care, mortality, seropositivity and RT-PCR positivity) in treatment and comparator groups, and other study characteristics. Blinding Data extraction and risk of bias assessment: The information extracted from eligible RCTs include: first author names, study country and setting, sample sizes, randomization, blinding, vitamin D form and dose, follow-up details, number of events for study outcomes (severity, ICU care, mortality, seropositivity and RT-PCR positivity) in treatment and comparator groups, and other study characteristics. Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources Literature search and study selection: The literature search was conducted with no language restrictions using PubMed/MEDLINE PubMed/MEDLINEsuggested: None, Cochrane library, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Science Direct, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to August 5, 2021. Cochrane librarysuggested: (Cochrane Library, RRID:SCR_013000)EMBASEsuggested: (EMBASE, RRID:SCR_001650)The search strategy included both the MeSH and broad text-word search terms: (“vitamin D” (MeSH Terms) OR “vitamin D” (All Fields) OR “ergocalciferols” ( MeSHsuggested: (MeSH, RRID:SCR_004750)Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:However, this study has some limitations. First, the heterogeneity observed in the meta-analysis could be due to methodological, participant and treatment variations of the included trials. While the single center RCTs have mainly contributed to the heterogeneity, leaving-out a study by Castillo et al. [14] decreased the I2 values from 48 to 5%, 66 to 0%, and 33 to 13% for the overall outcome pooling the results of all RCTs, ICU and mortality outcomes, respectively. This open label trial differs from all other RCTs as it uses calcifediol in varied concentrations at different time periods of the study. Second, there are only two placebo-controlled trials, one double-blinded study that uses a single high dose of vitamin D. Third, although no significant loss to the follow-up were reported in the RCTs, the proportion of participants and the criteria for sufficient and deficient vitamin D status varied across the trials. Fourth, the variations in the COVID-19 severity, comorbidities proportions and standard care treatment strategies could have influenced the heterogeneity and the overall result. Finally, the difference in the study settings, timings, randomization, blinding, and data collection strategies could have influenced the outcomes. None of the trials reported any adverse events due to vitamin supplementation. As there are only two and three trials respectively in the years 2020 [14,17] and 2021 [15,16,18,19] including small sample sizes, this meta-analysis strongly recom...
Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.
Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.
Results from rtransparent:- Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- No protocol registration statement was detected.
Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.
-
