| Title |
Does vitamin D supplementation alleviate chronic nonspecific musculoskeletal pain? A systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Rheumatology, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10067-016-3205-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
M. Gaikwad, S. Vanlint, M. Mittinity, G. L. Moseley, N. Stocks |
| Abstract |
Chronic nonspecific musculoskeletal pain (CNMP) is an idiopathic condition often seen in general practice and rheumatology clinics, the aetiology of which may include vitamin D deficiency. The objective of the present study is to evaluate the effectiveness of vitamin D supplementation in the management of CNMP through a systematic review and meta-analysis. According to PRISMA guidelines, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane and Scopus electronic databases were searched for randomised controlled trials comparing vitamin D supplementation to a control or placebo in CNMP patients; the search was not limited by language or date. Meta-analysis was performed using the mean and standardised mean difference which was computed with 95 % confidence intervals, and overall effect size was calculated. Both fixed and random effects models were used in meta-analysis to account for heterogeneity in the studies. The initial search identified 107 studies, of which 10 were potentially relevant, with 7 studies excluded because they did not meet selection criteria. Three studies were included in the meta-analysis. We found no effect of vitamin D supplementation (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.004; 95 % confidence interval (CI) -0.248 to 0.256) on pain in CNMP patients. Forest plot is used to present the results from meta-analysis. Contrary to a widespread clinical view, there is a moderate level of evidence that vitamin D supplementation is not helpful for treating CNMP patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 6 | 25% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 17% |
| Netherlands | 3 | 13% |
| Canada | 1 | 4% |
| Finland | 1 | 4% |
| Australia | 1 | 4% |
| Argentina | 1 | 4% |
| Belgium | 1 | 4% |
| United States | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 5 | 21% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 19 | 79% |
| Scientists | 3 | 13% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 78 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 15% |
| Researcher | 10 | 13% |
| Other | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 15 | 19% |
| Unknown | 17 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 34 | 43% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 15% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 4% |
| Psychology | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 5% |
| Unknown | 20 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 June 2023.
All research outputs
#2,145,224
of 24,972,914 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Rheumatology
#240
of 3,259 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,025
of 411,812 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Rheumatology
#1
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,972,914 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,259 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 411,812 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.