↓ Skip to main content

Nutritional vitamin D supplementation and health-related outcomes in hemodialysis patients: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 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
Nutritional vitamin D supplementation and health-related outcomes in hemodialysis patients: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Systematic Reviews, February 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13643-015-0002-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anita Mehrotra, Wai-Yin Leung, Tannia Joson

Abstract

The prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in hemodialysis patients is high. While most hemodialysis patients are treated with activated vitamin D (1,25[OH]2D) to prevent renal osteodystrophy, clinical practices of the screening and treatment of 25(OH)2D deficiency are highly variable. It is unclear if nutritional vitamin D supplementation with D2 or D3 provides an additional clinical benefit beyond that provided by activated vitamin D treatment in this population. We will conduct a systematic review of nutritional vitamin D (D2/D3) supplementation and health-related outcomes in hemodialysis patients according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The primary objective is to assess the impact of nutritional vitamin D supplementation on clinical outcomes relevant in hemodialysis patients, such as mortality, cardiovascular events, infections, and fractures. Secondary outcomes will include anemia, hyperparathyroidism, medication use (erythrocyte-stimulating agents, activated vitamin D), and quality of life. We will search MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized, controlled trials of nutritional vitamin D supplementation (ergocalciferol/D2 or cholecalciferol/D3) in chronic hemodialysis patients. The Cochrane Risk Assessment Tool will be used to assess the quality of eligible studies. We will perform meta-analyses using standard techniques for the outcomes listed above if pooling is deemed appropriate/sufficient. The results of this systematic review may highlight gaps in our knowledge of the relevance of nutritional vitamin D in end-stage renal disease, allowing for the informed design of clinical trials assessing the impact of nutritional vitamin D therapy in the hemodialysis population in the future. PROSPERO CRD42014013931.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 68 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 19%
Student > Bachelor 11 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 12%
Researcher 7 10%
Student > Postgraduate 6 9%
Other 13 19%
Unknown 11 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 1%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 1%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 16 23%

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 16 April 2015.
All research outputs
#4,182,880
of 5,002,950 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#379
of 412 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#142,001
of 174,056 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#33
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 5,002,950 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 412 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 174,056 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.