3 ms·
Most of these studies suck. For example, as mentioned in this response, https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/106/12/e5271/6348963 https://academic.oup.com/jcem
by wahern 5y ago
Most of these studies suck. For example, as mentioned in this response, https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/106/12/e5271/6348963 https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/106/12/e5271/6348963, to that first linked study (which may apply equally to the second, as it was just a trial for the subsequent study):
> However, the authors did not provide information on 25OHD serum levels after the supplementation, limiting the evidence of a causal link between vitamin D supplementation and the observed clinical outcomes.
IIRC, there was a similar study to the above that was retracted, in fact. Possibly even #2 above?
- edejong 5y agoIt’s an RCT. What will those measurements contribute? In addition, it is likely the measured serum levels will be lower because they are used up.
- wahern 5y agoThe first linked study was an observational cohort study, not an RCT. The second cited study was an earlier related pilot RCT by some of the same authors. Here's a recent summary looking at both those papers and many others. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8787834/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8787834/ TL;DR--it's all just too inconclusive at this point. Though as always everybody remains enthusiastic, notwithstanding that vitamin D papers have been perennial favorites long before COVID, without much to show for it. FWIW, I think this is the retracted paper I had in mind earlier: https://retractionwatch.com/2021/02/19/widely-shared-vitamin-d-covid-19-preprint-removed-from-lancet-server/ https://retractionwatch.com/2021/02/19/widely-shared-vitamin... Somewhat similar design and at least one of the same authors. Retracted because it wasn't actually as randomized as claimed.