Mobarhan 1984.

Methods	Randomised clinical trial with parallel group design (3 groups).
Participants	18 men, aged 32 to 61 years, mean age 52 years, with alcoholic cirrhosis. Inclusion criteria: men with advanced biopsy‐confirmed alcoholic cirrhosis with low levels of serum 25‐hydroxyvitamin D (< 20 ng/mL) and decreased bone density (i.e. > 1.5 standard deviations below mean of healthy Baltimore men of same ages). Exclusion criteria: history of corticosteroid, anticonvulsant, or vitamin D intake; renal disease.
Interventions	Intervention 1: vitamin D2 50,000 IU 2 or 3 times weekly (n = 6). Intervention 2: 25‐hydroxyvitamin D3 800 IU/day to 2000 IU/day (prepared and supplied as identical soft elastic capsules (20 or 50 μg) by Upjohn Co.) (n = 6). Control: no intervention (n = 6). For 1 year.
Outcomes	Outcomes reported in abstract of publication. Primary outcomes: bone mineral density. Secondary outcomes: none stated.
Stated aim of study	To compare the efficacy of 25‐hydroxyvitamin D3 or vitamin D2 in correcting the bone disease of people with alcoholic cirrhosis.
Notes	This study was supported by grants from Upjohn Co. and the Veterans Administration.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	The method of sequence generation was not specified.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	The method used to conceal the allocation was not described so that intervention allocations may have been foreseen in advance of, or during, enrolment.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	No blinding, and the outcome was likely to be influenced by lack of blinding.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	No blinding of outcome assessment, and the outcome measurement is likely to be influenced by lack of blinding.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Missing data were unlikely to make treatment effects depart from plausible values.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All clinically relevant and reasonably expected outcomes were reported.
For‐profit bias	High risk	The trial is sponsored by the industry.
Other bias	Low risk	The trial appeared to be free of other factors that could put it at risk of bias.