↓ Skip to main content

A randomized two way cross over study for comparison of absorption of vitamin D3 buccal spray and soft gelatin capsule formulation in healthy subjects and in patients with intestinal malabsorption

Overview of attention for article published in Nutrition Journal, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 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
A randomized two way cross over study for comparison of absorption of vitamin D3 buccal spray and soft gelatin capsule formulation in healthy subjects and in patients with intestinal malabsorption
Published in
Nutrition Journal, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12937-015-0105-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

MC Satia, AG Mukim, KD Tibrewala, MS Bhavsar

Abstract

Vitamin D deficiency has been proposed to contribute to the development of malabsorption diseases. Despite this, the vitamin D status of these patients is often neglected. The objective of the present work was to compare the absorption of vitamin D3 through the oral route by comparing a 1000 IU soft gelatin capsule and a 500 IU buccal spray (delivering 1000 IU in two spray shots) in healthy subjects and in patients with malabsorption disease. An open label, randomized, two-periods, two-way cross over study was conducted, first in healthy subjects (n = 20) and then in patients with malabsorption syndrome (n = 20). The study participants were equally divided and received either of the treatments (buccal spray, n = 7; soft gelatin capsule, n = 7; control, n = 6) in Period I for 30 days. After washout of another 30 days, the treatments were changed in crossover fashion in Period II. Fasting blood samples were collected to measure baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] levels in all participants at day 0 (Screening visit), day 30 (completion of period I), day 60 (end of wash out and initiation of period II) and day 90 (completion of period II). Safety was evaluated by hematology and biochemistry analyses. Statistical analyses was performed using differences of mean and percentage change from baseline of 25(OH)D levels between two formulation by two tailed Paired t-test with 95 % confidence interval. In healthy subjects, the mean increase in serum 25(OH)D concentration was 4.06 (95 % CI 3.41, 4.71) ng/ml in soft gelatin capsule group and 8.0 (95 % CI 6.86, 9.13) ng/ml in buccal spray group after 30 days treatment (p < 0.0001). In patients with malabsorption disease, the mean increase in serum 25(OH)D concentration was 3.96 (95 % CI 2.37, 5.56) ng/ml in soft gelatin capsule group and 10.46 (95 % CI 6.89, 14.03) ng/ml in buccal spray group (p < 0.0001). It can be concluded from the results that the buccal spray produced a significantly higher mean serum 25(OH)D concentration as compared to the soft gelatin capsule, in both healthy subjects as well as in patients with malabsorption syndrome over a period of 30 days administration in a two way cross over study. Treatments were well tolerated by both subject groups CTRI/2013/06/003770.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 11 22%
Student > Master 10 20%
Other 5 10%
Researcher 5 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 8%
Other 10 20%
Unknown 4 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 20%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 6%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 7 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 May 2016.
All research outputs
#3,768,378
of 7,705,951 outputs
Outputs from Nutrition Journal
#694
of 882 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#113,843
of 240,292 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nutrition Journal
#25
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,705,951 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 882 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.6. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 240,292 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.