↓ Skip to main content

A systematic review of pediatric clinical trials of high dose vitamin D

Overview of attention for article published in PeerJ, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (56th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A systematic review of pediatric clinical trials of high dose vitamin D
Published in
PeerJ, February 2016
DOI 10.7717/peerj.1701
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nassr Nama, Kusum Menon, Klevis Iliriani, Supichaya Pojsupap, Margaret Sampson, Katie O’Hearn, Linghong Zhou, Lauralyn McIntyre, Dean Fergusson, James D. McNally

Abstract

Background. Due to inadequate UV exposure, intake of small quantities of vitamin D is recommended to prevent musculoskeletal disease. Both basic science and observational literature strongly suggest that higher doses may benefit specific populations and have non-musculoskeletal roles. Evaluating the evidence surrounding high dose supplementation can be challenging given a relatively large and growing body of clinical trial evidence spanning time, geography, populations and dosing regimens. Study objectives were to identify and summarize the clinical trial literature, recognize areas with high quality evidence, and develop a resource database that makes the literature more immediately accessible to end users. Methods. Medline (1946 to January 2015), Embase (1974 to January 2015), and Cochrane databases (January 2015), were searched for trials. All pediatric (0-18 years) trials administering doses higher than 400 IU (<1 year) or 600 IU (≥1 year) were included. Data was extracted independently by two of the authors. An online searchable database of trials was developed containing relevant extracted information (http://www.cheori.org/en/pedvitaminddatabaseOverview). Sensitivity and utility were assessed by comparing the trials in the database with those from systematic reviews of vitamin D supplementation including children. Results. A total of 2,579 candidate papers were identified, yielding 169 trials having one or more arms meeting eligibility criteria. The publication rate has increased significantly from 1 per year (1970-1979) to 14 per year (2010-2015). Although 84% of the total trials focused on healthy children or known high risk populations (e.g., renal, prematurity), this proportion has declined in recent years due to the rise in trials evaluating populations and outcomes not directly related to the musculoskeletal actions of vitamin D (27% in 2010s). Beyond healthy children, the only pediatric populations with more than 50 participants from low risk of bias trials evaluating a clinically relevant outcome were prematurity and respiratory illness. Finally, we created and validated the online searchable database using 13 recent systematic reviews. Of the 38 high dose trials identified by the systematic review, 36 (94.7%) could be found within the database. When compared with the search strategy reported in each systematic review, use of the database reduced the number of full papers to assess for eligibility by 85.2% (±13.4%). Conclusion. The pediatric vitamin D field is highly active, with a significant increase in trials evaluating non-classical diseases and outcomes. Despite the large overall number there are few high quality trials of sufficient size to provide answers on clinical efficacy of high-dose vitamin D. An open access online searchable data should assist end users in the rapid and comprehensive identification and evaluation of trials relevant to their population or question of interest.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 15%
Researcher 6 15%
Student > Postgraduate 5 12%
Other 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 10 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 11 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 02 March 2016.
All research outputs
#7,474,859
of 22,851,489 outputs
Outputs from PeerJ
#6,168
of 13,290 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,668
of 298,590 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PeerJ
#186
of 348 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,851,489 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,290 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 298,590 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 348 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.