Vitamin D lacks efficacy: A re-analysis of a systematic review using the REB method

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Vanessa Bironneau, Marie Laura Palamede, Elodie Charuel, Clémence Jouault, Clara Blanchard, Sabine Mainbourg, Guillaume Grenet, Hélène Vaillant Roussel, Rémy Boussageon
{"title":"Vitamin D lacks efficacy: A re-analysis of a systematic review using the REB method","authors":"Vanessa Bironneau,&nbsp;Marie Laura Palamede,&nbsp;Elodie Charuel,&nbsp;Clémence Jouault,&nbsp;Clara Blanchard,&nbsp;Sabine Mainbourg,&nbsp;Guillaume Grenet,&nbsp;Hélène Vaillant Roussel,&nbsp;Rémy Boussageon","doi":"10.1111/fcp.70011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>The results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effect of vitamin D on the prevention of acute respiratory tract infections (RTIs) are conflicting. The aim of this study was to assess the level of evidence for the efficacy of vitamin D in preventing acute RTIs by performing a sensitivity analysis of the meta-analysis carried out by Jolliffe and al., using the Rebuild the Evidence Base (REB) method.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>The main inclusion criteria were double-blind, placebo-controlled, open-label RCTs. The exclusion criteria were RCTs in which vitamin D was associated with other nutrients and unpublished RCTs.</p>\n \n <p>The primary outcome was the number of people who had at least one RTI, including upper and lower RTIs. A bias analysis was performed of the included RCTs, followed by a hypothetico-deductive analysis to determine whether they were confirmatory or exploratory. Then, we used the REB method to determine the level of evidence for the effectiveness of vitamin D in preventing RTIs.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The main meta-analysis included 25 RCTs with a low risk of bias, involving 41 847 people. There was no significant difference between groups in the number of patients who had at least one RTI. According to the REB, there was a lack of evidence when assessing the effectiveness of vitamin D in preventing RTI.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>According to the REB, the analysis of the RCTs, considering the risk of bias, showed that there is a lack of evidence to justify the prescription of vitamin D for the preventing of RTIs.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":12657,"journal":{"name":"Fundamental & Clinical Pharmacology","volume":"39 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Fundamental & Clinical Pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fcp.70011","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

The results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effect of vitamin D on the prevention of acute respiratory tract infections (RTIs) are conflicting. The aim of this study was to assess the level of evidence for the efficacy of vitamin D in preventing acute RTIs by performing a sensitivity analysis of the meta-analysis carried out by Jolliffe and al., using the Rebuild the Evidence Base (REB) method.

Methods

The main inclusion criteria were double-blind, placebo-controlled, open-label RCTs. The exclusion criteria were RCTs in which vitamin D was associated with other nutrients and unpublished RCTs.

The primary outcome was the number of people who had at least one RTI, including upper and lower RTIs. A bias analysis was performed of the included RCTs, followed by a hypothetico-deductive analysis to determine whether they were confirmatory or exploratory. Then, we used the REB method to determine the level of evidence for the effectiveness of vitamin D in preventing RTIs.

Results

The main meta-analysis included 25 RCTs with a low risk of bias, involving 41 847 people. There was no significant difference between groups in the number of patients who had at least one RTI. According to the REB, there was a lack of evidence when assessing the effectiveness of vitamin D in preventing RTI.

Conclusion

According to the REB, the analysis of the RCTs, considering the risk of bias, showed that there is a lack of evidence to justify the prescription of vitamin D for the preventing of RTIs.

维生素D缺乏疗效:使用REB方法对系统评价的再分析
评价维生素D对急性呼吸道感染(RTIs)预防作用的随机对照试验(RCTs)结果相互矛盾。本研究的目的是通过对Jolliffe等人使用重建证据基础(REB)方法进行的荟萃分析进行敏感性分析,评估维生素D预防急性呼吸道感染疗效的证据水平。方法主要纳入标准为双盲、安慰剂对照、开放标签随机对照试验。排除标准是维生素D与其他营养素相关的随机对照试验和未发表的随机对照试验。主要结果是至少有一个RTI的人数,包括上RTI和下RTI。对纳入的rct进行偏倚分析,然后进行假设-演绎分析,以确定它们是验证性的还是探索性的。然后,我们使用REB方法来确定维生素D预防呼吸道感染有效性的证据水平。结果主meta分析纳入25项低偏倚风险的随机对照试验,共纳入41847人。两组之间至少有一次RTI的患者数量没有显著差异。根据REB的说法,在评估维生素D在预防RTI方面的有效性时缺乏证据。根据REB,考虑到偏倚风险,对随机对照试验的分析显示,缺乏证据证明维生素D处方可以预防RTIs。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
6.90%
发文量
111
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Fundamental & Clinical Pharmacology publishes reports describing important and novel developments in fundamental as well as clinical research relevant to drug therapy. Original articles, short communications and reviews are published on all aspects of experimental and clinical pharmacology including: Antimicrobial, Antiviral Agents Autonomic Pharmacology Cardiovascular Pharmacology Cellular Pharmacology Clinical Trials Endocrinopharmacology Gene Therapy Inflammation, Immunopharmacology Lipids, Atherosclerosis Liver and G-I Tract Pharmacology Metabolism, Pharmacokinetics Neuropharmacology Neuropsychopharmacology Oncopharmacology Pediatric Pharmacology Development Pharmacoeconomics Pharmacoepidemiology Pharmacogenetics, Pharmacogenomics Pharmacovigilance Pulmonary Pharmacology Receptors, Signal Transduction Renal Pharmacology Thrombosis and Hemostasis Toxicopharmacology Clinical research, including clinical studies and clinical trials, may cover disciplines such as pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, pharmacovigilance, pharmacoepidemiology, pharmacogenomics and pharmacoeconomics. Basic research articles from fields such as physiology and molecular biology which contribute to an understanding of drug therapy are also welcomed.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信