↓ Skip to main content

The D-Health Trial: A randomized trial of vitamin D for prevention of mortality and cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Contemporary Clinical Trials, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
103 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
119 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
The D-Health Trial: A randomized trial of vitamin D for prevention of mortality and cancer
Published in
Contemporary Clinical Trials, April 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.cct.2016.04.005
Pubmed ID
Authors

R.E. Neale, B.K. Armstrong, C. Baxter, B. Duarte Romero, P. Ebeling, D.R. English, M.G. Kimlin, D.S.A. McLeod, R.L. O′Connell, J.C. van der Pols, A.J. Venn, P.M. Webb, D.C. Whiteman, L. Wockner

Abstract

Vitamin D, specifically serum 25(OH)D has been associated with mortality, cancer and multiple other health endpoints in observational studies, but there is a paucity of clinical trial evidence sufficient to determine the safety and effectiveness of population-wide supplementation. We have therefore launched the D-Health Trial, a randomized trial of vitamin D supplementation for prevention of mortality and cancer. Here we report the methods and describe the trial cohort. The D-Health Trial is a randomized placebo-controlled trial, with planned intervention for 5years and a further 5years of passive follow-up through linkage with health and death registers. Participants aged 65-84years were recruited from the general population of Australia. The intervention is monthly oral doses of 60,000IU of cholecalciferol or matching placebo. The primary outcome is all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes are total cancer incidence and colorectal cancer incidence. We recruited 21,315 participants to the trial between February 2014 and May 2015. The participants in the two arms of the trial were well-balanced at baseline. Comparison with Australian population statistics shows that the trial participants were less likely to report being in fair or poor health, to be current smokers or to have diabetes than the Australian population. However, the proportion overweight or with health conditions such as arthritis and angina was similar. Observational data cannot be considered sufficient to support interventions delivered at a population level. Large-scale randomized trials such as the D-Health Trial are needed to inform public health policy and practice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
New Zealand 1 <1%
Unknown 118 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 20%
Researcher 15 13%
Student > Bachelor 14 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 9%
Lecturer 7 6%
Other 23 19%
Unknown 25 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Other 20 17%
Unknown 29 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 16 June 2021.
All research outputs
#1,764,914
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Contemporary Clinical Trials
#100
of 1,967 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,015
of 315,337 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Contemporary Clinical Trials
#2
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,967 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 315,337 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 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.