Errors in Table 1 and Figures 2 and 3

The Original Investigation titled “Vitamin D Supplementation and Cardiovascular Disease Risks in More Than 83 000 Individuals in 21 Randomized Clinical Trials: a Meta-analysis,”¹ published August 2019, contained errors in Table 1 and Figures 2 and 3. In Table 1, the study period of the Vitamin D in Isolated Systolic Hypertension (VITDISH) study by Witham et al was stated as 2009 to 2001, but this should have been 2009 to 2011. The study period of Vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial (VITAL) study by Manson et al was reported as 2011 to 2014, but this should have been 2011 to 2017. There are also several errors in Figure 2. With respect to the major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) outcome, the total number of populations in the study by Jackson et al are given as 18 106 in the vitamin D group and 18 176 in the placebo group; these values should be 18 176 and 18 106, respectively. Per resulting recalculations, the upper bound of the 95% CI of the Jackson et al study decreased by 0.01 (from 0.96-1.11 to 0.96-1.10). In addition, in the same section, the total population for the MACE outcome was reported incorrectly as 39 528 and 39 583 in the vitamin D and placebo groups, respectively; the numbers should instead be 39 598 and 39 513, respectively. In addition, in the MACE portion of Figure 2, several statistical phrases were incorrect, including a 95% CI reported as 0.95 to 1.06 (corrected to 0.95-1.05), a P value stated as .85 (corrected to .93), and an I² statistic stated as 11% (corrected to 8%). In the all-cause mortality section of Figure 2, event numbers for the Lehouck et al study are listed as 8 events in the group receiving vitamin D and 0 in those receiving placebo; there should have been reported as 9 and 6 events, respectively. With regard to the all-cause mortality values for the study by Jackson et al, the total population numbers were listed as 18 178 and 18 176 for the vitamin D and placebo groups, respectively, but these should have been 18 176 and 18 106, respectively. This change means that the associated 95% CI has been corrected from 0.92 to 1.04 to 0.91 to 1.03. Finally, in Figure 2, the hazard ratio (95% CI) for the cardiovascular mortality subtotal was given as 0.98 (0.00-1.07); this should instead have been 0.98 (0.90-1.07). In Figure 3, there are 2 further errors. With respect to the myocardial infarction outcome, the relative ratio (95% CI) for the Prince et al study is listed as 0.87 (0.11-3.83); it should instead have been stated as 0.67 (0.11-3.93). Finally, the 95% CI of the subtotal in the myocardial infarction section of Figure 3 was stated as 0.03 to 1.08; it should have been 0.93 to 1.08. These errors have been corrected.