↓ Skip to main content

Vitamin D for the treatment of chronic painful conditions in adults

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
58 tweeters
facebook
6 Facebook pages
googleplus
3 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
191 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
Vitamin D for the treatment of chronic painful conditions in adults
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007771.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sebastian Straube, Sheena Derry, Carmen Straube, R Andrew Moore

Abstract

This review is an update of a previously published review in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Issue 1, 2010) on 'Vitamin D for the treatment of chronic painful conditions in adults'.Vitamin D is produced in the skin after exposure to sunlight and can be obtained through food. Vitamin D deficiency has been linked with a range of conditions, including chronic pain. Observational and circumstantial evidence suggests that there may be a role for vitamin D deficiency in the aetiology of chronic painful conditions. To assess the efficacy and safety of vitamin D supplementation in chronic painful conditions when tested against placebo or against active comparators. For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE to February 2015. This was supplemented by searching the reference lists of retrieved articles, reviews in the field, and online trial registries. We included studies if they were randomised double-blind trials of vitamin D supplementation compared with placebo or with active comparators for the treatment of chronic painful conditions in adults. Two review authors independently selected the studies for inclusion, assessed methodological quality, and extracted data. We did not undertake pooled analysis due to the heterogeneity of the data. Primary outcomes of interest were pain responder outcomes, and secondary outcomes were treatment group average pain outcomes and adverse events. We included six new studies (517 participants) in this review update, bringing the total of included studies to 10 (811 participants). The studies were heterogeneous with regard to study quality, the chronic painful conditions that were investigated, the dose of vitamin D given, co-interventions, and the outcome measures reported. Only two studies reported responder pain outcomes; the other studies reported treatment group average outcomes only. Overall, there was no consistent pattern that vitamin D treatment was associated with greater efficacy than placebo in any chronic painful condition (low quality evidence). Adverse events and withdrawals were comparatively infrequent, with no consistent difference between vitamin D and placebo (good quality evidence). The evidence addressing the use of vitamin D for chronic pain now contains more than twice as many studies and participants than were included in the original version of this review. Based on this evidence, a large beneficial effect of vitamin D across different chronic painful conditions is unlikely. Whether vitamin D can have beneficial effects in specific chronic painful conditions needs further investigation.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 58 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 191 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 2%
United Kingdom 2 1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Unknown 181 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 39 20%
Student > Bachelor 35 18%
Researcher 22 12%
Unspecified 21 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 10%
Other 53 28%
Unknown 1 <1%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 93 49%
Unspecified 30 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 10%
Psychology 12 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 4%
Other 27 14%
Unknown 1 <1%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 58. 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 30 May 2019.
All research outputs
#279,209
of 13,105,594 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#760
of 10,477 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,425
of 227,637 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#23
of 233 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,105,594 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,477 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.6. 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 227,637 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 233 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 90% of its contemporaries.