Vitamin D supplementation for cystic fibrosis
Información
- DOI:
- https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007298.pub2Copiar DOI
- Base de datos:
-
- Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
- Versión publicada:
-
- 07 octubre 2009see what's new
- Tipo:
-
- Intervention
- Etapa:
-
- Review
- Grupo Editorial Cochrane:
-
Grupo Cochrane de Fibrosis quística y enfermedades genéticas
- Copyright:
-
- Copyright © 2011 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Cifras del artículo
Altmetric:
Citado por:
Autores
Contributions of authors
Both JF and AC extracted the data and wrote the protocol and review.
JF acts as guarantor of the review.
Sources of support
Internal sources
-
Royal Children's Hospital Foundation, Australia.
AC is supported by the RCH Foundation
External sources
-
National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia.
AC is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship
-
Queensland Smart State Fellowship, Australia.
AC is supported by a Queensland State Clinical Fellowship
Declarations of interest
None known.
Acknowledgements
We thank Natalie Yates for performing the searches and obtaining the articles and Nikki Jahnke for the review of the manuscript and advice on analysis. We also thank Kerry Dwan for help with the statistics and the Cochrane CFGD Group for their support during the development of the protocol and review. We also thank Professor Howarth for responding to our correspondence.
Version history
| Published | Title | Stage | Authors | Version |
| 2014 May 14 | Vitamin D supplementation for cystic fibrosis | Review | Janet H Ferguson, Anne B Chang | |
| 2012 Apr 18 | Vitamin D supplementation for cystic fibrosis | Review | Janet H Ferguson, Anne B Chang | |
| 2009 Oct 07 | Vitamin D supplementation for cystic fibrosis | Review | Janet H Ferguson, Anne B Chang | |
| 2009 Jul 08 | Vitamin D supplementation for cystic fibrosis | Protocol | Janet H Ferguson, Anne B Chang | |
Differences between protocol and review
We include a post‐hoc analysis of BMD outcomes (z scores: deviation from population mean matched for age and gender) which is different from the planned primary BMD outcome measures of the protocol. BMDs can be expressed as T‐scores or z scores, with different advantages and disadvantages and equally valid in studies. As we could not use both as the primary outcome in the protocol, we elected to choose T‐score in the protocol. However the studies included provided only z scores and hence this was included as a post‐hoc analysis; we did request additional data but none were available. This is also now consistent with the primary outcomes in the Cochrane review on 'Bisphosphonates for adults and children with cystic fibrosis' (Brenckmann 2001).
