↓ Skip to main content

Vitamin D as an adjunct to antibiotics for the treatment of acute childhood pneumonia

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2018
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 (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
44 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 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 as an adjunct to antibiotics for the treatment of acute childhood pneumonia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011597.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rashmi R Das, Meenu Singh, Sushree S Naik

Abstract

Children with acute pneumonia may be vitamin D deficient. Clinical trials have found that prophylactic vitamin D supplementation decreases the risk of developing pneumonia in children. Data on the therapeutic effects of vitamin D in acute childhood pneumonia are limited. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of vitamin D supplementation as an adjunct to antibiotics for the treatment of acute childhood pneumonia. We searched CENTRAL (2017, Issue 7), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register; Ovid MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print; In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations; Ovid MEDLINE Daily and Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to July Week 4, 2017); and Embase (2010 to 28 July 2017). We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) on 28 July 2017. There were no language restrictions. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including children (aged over one month and up to five years) hospitalised with acute community-acquired pneumonia, as defined by the WHO acute respiratory infection guidelines, that compared vitamin D supplementation with control. Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and extracted data. For dichotomous data, we extracted the number of participants experiencing the outcome and the total number of participants in each treatment group. For continuous data, we used the arithmetic mean and standard deviation (SD) for each treatment group together with numbers of participants in each group. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We included seven RCTs conducted in low-income countries that involved 1529 children (780 with pneumonia and 749 with severe or very severe pneumonia). Four studies used a single 100,000 IU dose of vitamin D₃ at the onset of illness or within 24 hours of hospital admission; two used a daily dose of oral vitamin D₃ (1000 IU for children aged up to one year and 2000 IU for children aged over one year) for five days; and one used a daily dose of oral vitamin D₃ (50,000 IU) for two days. One study reported microbiological and radiological diagnosis of pneumonia.The effects of vitamin D on outcomes were inconclusive when compared with control: time to resolution of acute illness (hours) (mean difference (MD) -0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) -6.14 to 4.24; 3 studies; 935 children; low-quality evidence) mortality rate (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.28; 1 study; 193 children; very low-quality evidence); duration of hospitalisation (MD 0.49, 95% CI -8.41 to 9.4; 4 studies; 835 children; very low-quality evidence) and time to resolution of fever (MD 1.66, 95% CI -2.44 to 5.76; 4 studies; 584 children; very low-quality evidence).No major adverse events were reported.The GRADE assessment found very low-quality evidence (due to serious study limitations, inconsistencies, indirectness, and imprecision) for all outcomes except time to resolution of acute illness.One study was funded by the New Zealand Aid Corporation; one study was funded by an institutional grant; and five studies were unfunded. We are uncertain as to whether vitamin D has an important effect on outcomes because the results were imprecise. No major adverse events were reported. We assessed the quality of the evidence as very low to low. Several trials are ongoing and may provide additional information.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 44 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 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 75 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 21 28%
Student > Master 11 15%
Student > Bachelor 9 12%
Other 8 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Other 19 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 29 39%
Medicine and Dentistry 25 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 8%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Environmental Science 2 3%
Other 10 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. 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 19 March 2019.
All research outputs
#558,785
of 13,274,069 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,794
of 10,546 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,791
of 267,212 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#43
of 180 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,274,069 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,546 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 267,212 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 180 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.