This is hardly worth writing up for n=57. I scanned the full text and didn't see any notation regarding vitamin d blood levels in patients, which would have bee

This is hardly worth writing up for n=57. I scanned the full text and didn't see any notation regarding vitamin d blood levels in patients, which would have been useful to know. Maybe nobody wanted to pay for those tests? A helpful result would be something like, "blood levels of X ng/ml improved survival rates Y% with a confidence interval of Z." Instead, we have an odd and vague dosage, "80,000 IU vitamin D3 every 2–3 months." I gather this study was constructed given the supplement regimen that was in-place. Why were the patients being supplemented that way? What standard of care is that?