↓ Skip to main content

Michigan Publishing

Article Metrics

Early High-Dose Vitamin D3 for Critically Ill, Vitamin D–Deficient Patients

Overview of attention for article published in New England Journal of Medicine, December 2019
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
427 tweeters
facebook
13 Facebook pages
reddit
2 Redditors

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
155 Mendeley
Title
Early High-Dose Vitamin D3 for Critically Ill, Vitamin D–Deficient Patients
Published in
New England Journal of Medicine, December 2019
DOI 10.1056/nejmoa1911124
Pubmed ID
Abstract

Vitamin D deficiency is a common, potentially reversible contributor to morbidity and mortality among critically ill patients. The potential benefits of vitamin D supplementation in acute critical illness require further study. We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of early vitamin D3 supplementation in critically ill, vitamin D-deficient patients who were at high risk for death. Randomization occurred within 12 hours after the decision to admit the patient to an intensive care unit. Eligible patients received a single enteral dose of 540,000 IU of vitamin D3 or matched placebo. The primary end point was 90-day all-cause, all-location mortality. A total of 1360 patients were found to be vitamin D-deficient during point-of-care screening and underwent randomization. Of these patients, 1078 had baseline vitamin D deficiency (25-hydroxyvitamin D level, <20 ng per milliliter [50 nmol per liter]) confirmed by subsequent testing and were included in the primary analysis population. The mean day 3 level of 25-hydroxyvitamin D was 46.9±23.2 ng per milliliter (117±58 nmol per liter) in the vitamin D group and 11.4±5.6 ng per milliliter (28±14 nmol per liter) in the placebo group (difference, 35.5 ng per milliliter; 95% confidence interval [CI], 31.5 to 39.6). The 90-day mortality was 23.5% in the vitamin D group (125 of 531 patients) and 20.6% in the placebo group (109 of 528 patients) (difference, 2.9 percentage points; 95% CI, -2.1 to 7.9; P = 0.26). There were no clinically important differences between the groups with respect to secondary clinical, physiological, or safety end points. The severity of vitamin D deficiency at baseline did not affect the association between the treatment assignment and mortality. Early administration of high-dose enteral vitamin D3 did not provide an advantage over placebo with respect to 90-day mortality or other, nonfatal outcomes among critically ill, vitamin D-deficient patients. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; VIOLET ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03096314.).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 427 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 155 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 155 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 24 15%
Researcher 22 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 12%
Student > Master 15 10%
Student > Postgraduate 14 9%
Other 36 23%
Unknown 25 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 83 54%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 12 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 1%
Other 11 7%
Unknown 33 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 307. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 December 2020.
All research outputs
#54,834
of 16,342,594 outputs
Outputs from New England Journal of Medicine
#1,679
of 27,680 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,901
of 384,472 outputs
Outputs of similar age from New England Journal of Medicine
#51
of 230 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,342,594 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 27,680 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 86.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 384,472 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 230 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.