↓ Skip to main content

Randomized supplementation of 4000 IU vitamin D3 daily vs placebo on the prevalence of anemia in advanced heart failure: the EVITA trial

Overview of attention for article published in Nutrition Journal, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 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
Randomized supplementation of 4000 IU vitamin D3 daily vs placebo on the prevalence of anemia in advanced heart failure: the EVITA trial
Published in
Nutrition Journal, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12937-017-0270-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

J. B. Ernst, S. Prokop, U. Fuchs, J. Dreier, J. Kuhn, C. Knabbe, H. K. Berthold, S. Pilz, I. Gouni-Berthold, J. F. Gummert, J. Börgermann, A. Zittermann

Abstract

Low 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25OHD) levels (< 75 nmol/l) are inversely associated with anemia prevalence. Since anemia and low 25OHD levels are common in patients with heart failure (HF), we aimed to investigate whether vitamin D supplementation can reduce anemia prevalence in advanced HF. EVITA (Effect of Vitamin D on Mortality in Heart Failure) is a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial in patients with initial 25OHD levels < 75 nmol/l. Participants received either 4000 IU vitamin D3 daily or a matching placebo for 36 months. A total of 172 patients (vitamin D group: n = 85; placebo group: n = 87) were investigated in this pre-specified secondary data analysis. Hemoglobin (Hb) and other hematological parameters were measured at baseline and study termination. Assessment of between-group differences in anemia prevalence and Hb concentrations was performed at study termination, while adjusting for baseline differences. In the vitamin D and placebo group, baseline proportions of patients with anemia (Hb < 12.0 g/dL in females and < 13.0 g/dL in males) were 17.2% and 10.6%, respectively (P = 0.19). At study termination, the proportion of patients with anemia in the vitamin D and placebo groups was 32.2% and 31.8%, respectively (P > 0.99). There was no between-group difference in change in the Hb concentrations (- 0.04 g/dL [95%CI:-0.53 to 0.45 g/dL]; P = 0.87). Results regarding anemia risk and Hb concentrations were similar in the subgroup of patients with chronic kidney disease (vitamin D group: n = 26; placebo group: n = 23). Moreover, results did not differ substantially when data analysis was restricted to patients with deficient baseline 25OHD levels. A daily vitamin D supplement of 4000 IU did not reduce anemia prevalence in patients with advanced HF. Data challenge the clinical relevance of vitamin D supplementation to increase Hb levels. The study was registered at EudraCT (No. 2010-020793-42) and clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT01326650 ).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 86 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 12 14%
Student > Master 7 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Other 5 6%
Other 20 23%
Unknown 30 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 1%
Other 3 3%
Unknown 34 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 20 October 2017.
All research outputs
#14,431,072
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Nutrition Journal
#1,072
of 1,447 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#171,331
of 318,239 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nutrition Journal
#17
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,447 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 37.2. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 318,239 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.