Efficacy of high-dose vitamin D in pediatric asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Observational studies have suggested a relationship between vitamin D status and asthma-related respiratory outcomes. The benefit of vitamin D supplementation for pulmonary function, symptoms and exacerbations is not well established. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review paediatric clinical trials investigating the role of vitamin D on asthma-related respiratory outcomes. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL were searched until January 2014. No date or language restrictions. STUDY SELECTION: Clinical trials reporting asthma-related respiratory outcomes following vitamin D administration at a dose equal or greater than 500 IU per day were included and reviewed independently by two authors for full systematic review eligibility. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently extracted and verified pre-defined data fields. RESULTS: We identified five studies that met study eligibility and assessed final data synthesis. The median trial size was 48 participants (range 17-430) and the average daily dose of cholecalciferol ranged from 500 to 2000 IU/day. Overall study methodological quality was high, but some heterogeneity in population and vitamin D dosing regimen was evident. Meta-analysis suggested a statistically significant reduction (RR 0.41, CI 0.27-0.63) in asthma exacerbation with vitamin D therapy. LIMITATIONS: Due to variability in outcome selection and missing data, it was not possible to perform meta-analysis for pulmonary function testing and asthma symptom scores. Vitamin D-related adverse events were not considered in four of five papers. CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence from this systematic review suggests that high dose vitamin D may prevent asthma exacerbation. This should be confirmed through larger well-designed randomised controlled trials.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".